[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:

> 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.
>

...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who found out
that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many others.

...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people find out
that it isn't what it was sold as.

...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform in
general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal, etc.,that's
a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.

...success in  selling something that doesn't work as advertised.


> 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.
>

What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.

Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not destroying
public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in electoral-reform
itself.

The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of FairVote's
promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well.  As you
know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
progreess.

>
> 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.
>

Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud?  That's not pragmatism. There
other other words for it.

>
> 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/f1051aa1/attachment-0001.htm>