[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 18:39:14 PST 2023
FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been eliminated."
...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
As it's written, that passage is a lie.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 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/a58b0c5f/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list