[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 19:37:11 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:34 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
Yes, & I'll find it, though I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading for
you.
>
> 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/cb3ac097/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list