[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

[Michael Garman]

It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for primaries
and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on the
ballot. I hope it wins!

You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to destroy
everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.

The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces FPTP with
a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike the
fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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/20231217/11ec9199/attachment-0001.htm>