[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 18:55:53 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote
>
> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>
Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
> and sowing division within the limited base of support
>
Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie is
common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
years, by various members of the community.
> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new people to
> support our cause.
>
People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your fraud-supported
"cause".
Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20231217/71d2bd3a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list