[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 18:35:11 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 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
>
No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops !!! You &
Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
.
>
> 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/20231217/8533dd06/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list