[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 19:03:02 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
>
>
You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording & imply
that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
>
>
> Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material chance of
> success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
>
Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has set
electoral-reform back decades.
>
> 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/20231217/8fa6a35c/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list