[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 19:21:57 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:11 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
> website to make the wording clearer.
>
What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's because
you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
>
> You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
> something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
> rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
> that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
>
So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
>> clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
>>
>> ..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
>> something that isn't true.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
>>> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>>>
>>
>> :-D
>>
>> So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
>> as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
>> & friends? :-D
>>
>> So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
>>
>>
>>> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>>>
>>
>> At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>>
>>>
>>> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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/20231217/39c0b464/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list