[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Sun Dec 17 18:57:52 PST 2023
Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material chance of
success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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/20231217/8219a20e/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list