[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 18:30:44 PST 2023
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for their next
choice."
That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice Voting".
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of your claim…
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> > " RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the intentional lie
>>> your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help Middle against Worst
>>> if Favorite doesn’t win."
>>>
>>> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops! Michael
>>> Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
>>
>> “…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
>>
>> I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have already seen
>> FairVote’s promotional material.
>>
>> But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an example here. …one
>> of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>>
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of spelling my
>>> surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in my
>>> email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported claim was !
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims instead of
>>>>> forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
>>>>>> electoral-reform community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to someone making
>>>>>> incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the incorrect statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the perfect be the enemy
>>>>>>> of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress whatsoever.
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination (STE) is a fraud.
>>>>>>>> I said that RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
>>>>>>>> intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
>>>>>>>> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a nonexistent
>>>>>>>> Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t be supported.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be successfully sold to
>>>>>>>> the people of Oregon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system itself is “fraud”
>>>>>>>>> because you dislike one of the many organizations that advocate for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV advocates…until they
>>>>>>>>>> found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lying to sell something is called fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t like that when
>>>>>>>>>> they find out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My response to Michael's second paragraph below is admittedly a
>>>>>>>>>>> "rant"
>>>>>>>>>>> that's intended to reveal insights about what's going on under
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> surface of election-method reform in the U.S., especially in
>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon. In
>>>>>>>>>>> other words, what I've written in response to Michael's second
>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>> is not directed at Michael.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and for taking
>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>> educate me about the lack of official collaboration between
>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping NYC to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>> ranked
>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep letting the
>>>>>>>>>>> perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a conspiracy
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most powerful election
>>>>>>>>>>> reformers
>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck with FPTP.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have no
>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion — because
>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group of
>>>>>>>>>>> election-method
>>>>>>>>>>> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly pushing STAR
>>>>>>>>>>> voting, with
>>>>>>>>>>> lots of financial assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that current
>>>>>>>>>>> versions of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>> software do not allow giving the same preference level to two or
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR ballots do
>>>>>>>>>>> allow this
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled ballots" in real
>>>>>>>>>>> IRV
>>>>>>>>>>> elections as evidence of the importance of this issue (even
>>>>>>>>>>> though an
>>>>>>>>>>> overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice ballot can be
>>>>>>>>>>> categorized as "spoiled").
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the FairVote organization were more honest about the
>>>>>>>>>>> importance of
>>>>>>>>>>> being able to rank multiple candidates at the same preference
>>>>>>>>>>> level, the
>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to push IRV fans
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> becoming STAR fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> History: Interestingly the primary financial backer behind STAR
>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>> started out as an IRV fan. I know this because about 20 years
>>>>>>>>>>> ago a
>>>>>>>>>>> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping from the Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>> newspaper
>>>>>>>>>>> in which that person, the son of a university president there,
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in Eugene had
>>>>>>>>>>> heard me
>>>>>>>>>>> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what are now called
>>>>>>>>>>> "ranked
>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis, but traveled
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that some people in
>>>>>>>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>> thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference
>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis, where IRV was
>>>>>>>>>>> adopted
>>>>>>>>>>> later after I moved away.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My opposition is against the misinformation about so-called
>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to push IRV through
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon legislature.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For about two decades I've been offering constructive criticism
>>>>>>>>>>> to IRV
>>>>>>>>>>> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my suggestions are regarded
>>>>>>>>>>> as not
>>>>>>>>>>> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about the unfair
>>>>>>>>>>> results of
>>>>>>>>>>> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special election in Alaska.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>>>>>>> IRV and then, later, improving the counting software.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by eliminating
>>>>>>>>>>> "pairwise
>>>>>>>>>>> losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well aware that this
>>>>>>>>>>> refinement
>>>>>>>>>>> will take longer to remedy compared to correctly counting
>>>>>>>>>>> overvotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting criticize IRV as
>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet this effect will
>>>>>>>>>>> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing candidates are
>>>>>>>>>>> eliminated when
>>>>>>>>>>> they occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations -- basically
>>>>>>>>>>> "white lies"
>>>>>>>>>>> -- from both the FairVote organization and the fans of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>> voting (who
>>>>>>>>>>> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote Coalition), both of
>>>>>>>>>>> whom are
>>>>>>>>>>> well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election Science
>>>>>>>>>>> Foundation also
>>>>>>>>>>> promotes misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations. I'm attacking
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I realize that sometimes those organizations are trying to keep
>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>> simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of those
>>>>>>>>>>> simplifications
>>>>>>>>>>> become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's important to understand that the fans of STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>> getting so many signatures on their current statewide petition
>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and FairVote had not been
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get enough signatures
>>>>>>>>>>> on their
>>>>>>>>>>> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene elections if they
>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a "better kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> ranked
>>>>>>>>>>> choice voting"). That Eugene-specific petition-based referendum
>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024 ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting STAR voting;
>>>>>>>>>>> rather I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the statewide ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>>>>>> initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are doing this by
>>>>>>>>>>> pushing
>>>>>>>>>>> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a misrepresentation because they criticize ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though the
>>>>>>>>>>> already-scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of "overvotes" so
>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>> wording is compatible with future software.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being countable has
>>>>>>>>>>> contributed to
>>>>>>>>>>> this attack against IRV.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been promoting ranked
>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for three decades, although previously under the names
>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the mayoral election
>>>>>>>>>>> and STV
>>>>>>>>>>> for city council elections. (In spite of opposition from a fan
>>>>>>>>>>> of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>> voting who was on the charter amendment committee.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
>>>>>>>>>>> ranked-choice-voting
>>>>>>>>>>> referendum that will appear statewide on the November ballot --
>>>>>>>>>>> with no
>>>>>>>>>>> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting details, because
>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>> influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified against this
>>>>>>>>>>> bill.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC, STAR fans, and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Election Science Foundation is undermining support for
>>>>>>>>>>> Portland's
>>>>>>>>>>> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked choice ballots for
>>>>>>>>>>> electing
>>>>>>>>>>> our governor and our members of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not intending to suggest there is any conspiracy between the
>>>>>>>>>>> organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the donations
>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>> these organizations would decline if they were to increase
>>>>>>>>>>> cooperation
>>>>>>>>>>> and avoid misrepresentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature being the
>>>>>>>>>>> first state
>>>>>>>>>>> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters to adopt ranked
>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely beneficial tipping
>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>> for civilization! (Other states that have adopted ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>> have had to do it by gathering signatures on petitions.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My anger is directed at the people who undermine this progress
>>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>>> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better software.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That better software will correctly count mythical "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA (independence of
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get criticized as
>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect" failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My request to all election-method reform organizations and
>>>>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>>>>> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at least to Oregon
>>>>>>>>>>> voters, so
>>>>>>>>>>> the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum passes with
>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone still reading this far, thank you for reading my
>>>>>>>>>>> rant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>> The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep letting the perfect
>>>>>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a conspiracy
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most powerful election
>>>>>>>>>>> reformers
>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck with FPTP.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have no
>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion — because it
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>> > <electionmethods at votefair.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods at votefair.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center is an
>>>>>>>>>>> independent entity
>>>>>>>>>>> > fully
>>>>>>>>>>> > > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that the Ranked Choice
>>>>>>>>>>> Voting
>>>>>>>>>>> > Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!) affiliated with
>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Then why does RCVRC have the same misunderstanding that
>>>>>>>>>>> the leader of
>>>>>>>>>>> > the FairVote organization has been pushing for decades?
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC pushed onto
>>>>>>>>>>> the Portland
>>>>>>>>>>> > Oregon election officials the idea that skipping(!)
>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes" was a
>>>>>>>>>>> > recommended option. That's worse than ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>> remaining rankings!
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > That skipping option works in Australia where a voter
>>>>>>>>>>> hand-writes a
>>>>>>>>>>> > number next to each candidate's name. (They don't have to
>>>>>>>>>>> worry about
>>>>>>>>>>> > "ballot real estate" because there is just one box for
>>>>>>>>>>> each candidate.)
>>>>>>>>>>> > But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S. where we mark
>>>>>>>>>>> ovals in
>>>>>>>>>>> > "choice" columns. And where ballot real estate is very
>>>>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > (In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for Oregon
>>>>>>>>>>> adopts RCV for
>>>>>>>>>>> > just a limited number of contests because election
>>>>>>>>>>> officials were
>>>>>>>>>>> > concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon ballots to
>>>>>>>>>>> require more
>>>>>>>>>>> > than one sheet of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows
>>>>>>>>>>> that in your NYC
>>>>>>>>>>> > elections "The scanner will reject any ballot where you
>>>>>>>>>>> mark more than
>>>>>>>>>>> > one candidate for the same rank – in other words, if you
>>>>>>>>>>> fill in more
>>>>>>>>>>> > than one oval in the same column."
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to correctly count
>>>>>>>>>>> those marks?
>>>>>>>>>>> > (Just pair up equivalent ballots and allocate those
>>>>>>>>>>> "paired" ballots in
>>>>>>>>>>> > equal numbers to those same-ranked candidates.)
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>> > The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > ----
>>>>>>>>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>> > <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
>>>>>> list info
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231217/fdf07cf1/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list