[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

[Michael Garman]

>> Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
they've been asked to & have agreed to?  How about because it's an
intentional lie.


Wow! That's big. I'd be curious to learn more about it. Do you have a
source?

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:32 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:23 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> What the fuck do you want me to do?
>>
>
> How about what I suggested.Write to them with your suggestion that they
> clarify their wording.
>
>> I have no connection to FairVote.
>>
>
> ...& you know that you'd be ignored if you wrote to them & suggested that
> they clarify their wording.  You know that they won't do so, because it
> benefits them for people to believe the lie.
>
>>
>> Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
>> their claims are not fraudulent --  supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
>> rocket science.
>>
>
> The claims are fraudulent.  I'm referring to the lie that I quoted. Use of
> a lie to sell something is fraud.  You say it's just a misunderstanding of
> wording that could be clearer. So it's just an accidental oversight that
> the wording implies something false?  Why don't they change it? They've
> been criticized for it for a long time.
>
> Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
> wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
> to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
> they've been asked to & have agreed to?  How about because it's an
> intentional lie.
>
> In a debate with Clay Shentrup, Aaron Hamiln & others, Richie never made
> that particular claim. Why ever not? Howabout because he knew that he
> couldn't get away with that lie among that company.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/cfedf823/attachment-0001.htm>