[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Sun Dec 17 18:32:37 PST 2023
Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they are my top
choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my second choice.
That’s how it works :)
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> "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/b1ac4052/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list