[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Sun Dec 17 18:37:04 PST 2023
Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the running. Which is
also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice” language you cite.
Satisfied?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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/d96f5487/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list