[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Sun Dec 17 19:38:12 PST 2023
" I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading for you."
If you're going to make claims, the onus is on you to substantiate them :)
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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/df173c92/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list