[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 18:59:04 PST 2023
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to something
that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that FairVote
knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense for
> the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>
> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated per
> round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second choice
> if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate people's
> cognitive abilities.
>
> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and everyone
> understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct. I'm not
> going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have little
> sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 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:
>>
>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate is
>>> eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still in
>>> the running.”
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
>> qualification.
>>
>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
>> because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
>> creatively modify it) is true.
>>
>>
>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>
>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
>>> sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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/a0e8df03/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list