[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 20:21:59 PST 2023 

...so you think that the Republicans wanting to ban RCV has nothing to do
with their being on the wrong end of violations of FairVote's promise about
RCV.

When it was Republicans' 2nd choice that was no longer there when they
needed to transfer to it?

Yes obviously both of the right-wings of theRepublocratic party don't want
electoral-reform, but the Republicans have seen the promise violated in
their disfavor every time, giving them particularly obvious immediate
incentive to ban RCV.



On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:57 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:

> They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
> because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
> Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:27 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> >> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>
>>> What evidence have you got?
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful.  I said that there have
>> been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
>> out that they'd been lied to.
>>
>> Now what are you asking for? A list of their names?  They comprise a
>> surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
>> different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
>>
>> So I should bring you a list of their names?
>>
>>  :-)
>>
>> The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of
>> FairVote's promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in
>> general.  Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
>>>>> confidence!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
>>>>
>>>> Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
>>>> FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
>>>> confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "a fair number of repeals of RCV"
>>>>>
>>>>> One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
>>>>>>> winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
>>>>>>> improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
>>>>>> found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people
>>>>>> find out that it isn't what it was sold as.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform
>>>>>> in general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal,
>>>>>> etc.,that's a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...success in  selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
>>>>>>> primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
>>>>>>> the ballot. I hope it wins!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
>>>>>>> destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
>>>>>> As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
>>>>>> destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
>>>>>> electoral-reform itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
>>>>>> FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
>>>>>> rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well.  As you
>>>>>> know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
>>>>>> progreess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
>>>>>>> FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
>>>>>>> the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud?  That's not pragmatism.
>>>>>> There other other words for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording
>>>>>>>> & imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
>>>>>>>>> chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has
>>>>>>>> set electoral-reform back decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and sowing division within the limited base of support
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie
>>>>>>>>>> is common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
>>>>>>>>>> discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
>>>>>>>>>> years, by various members of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new
>>>>>>>>>>> people to support our cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
>>>>>>>>>> fraud-supported "cause".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As it's written, that passage is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language you cite. Satisfied?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> !!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s how it works :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their next choice."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > " RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example here.  …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported claim was !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electoral-reform community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn’t criticizing STE.  I was criticizing fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonexistent Condorcet-properties  method being fraudulently sold by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn’t be supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying to sell something is called fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like that when they find out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy <electionmethods at votefair.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My response to Michael's second paragraph below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is admittedly a "rant"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's intended to reveal insights about what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially in Oregon.  In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, what I've written in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael's second paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not directed at Michael.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for taking time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educate me about the lack of official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration between RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.  Also, I'm very pleased you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping NYC to adopt ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election-method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing STAR voting, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of financial assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current versions of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software do not allow giving the same preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level to two or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates.  They push STAR voting by saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR ballots do allow this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of marking.  And they point to "spoiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" in real IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections as evidence of the importance of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue (even though an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overvote is just one way in which a ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballot can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> categorized as "spoiled").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the FairVote organization were more honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to rank multiple candidates at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same preference level, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV fans into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becoming STAR fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History:  Interestingly the primary financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backer behind STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started out as an IRV fan.  I know this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 20 years ago a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Eugene newspaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which that person, the son of a university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> president there, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting "instant runoff voting."  The friend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Eugene had heard me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are now called "ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots."  Back then I lived in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corvallis, but traveled to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought I lived there.  FWIW, I also promoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where IRV was adopted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later after I moved away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opposition is against the misinformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about so-called "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to IRV.  In fact I've helped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon legislature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For about two decades I've been offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive criticism to IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions are regarded as not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unfair results of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election in Alaska.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea of adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV and then, later, improving the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating "pairwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> losing candidates" when they occur.  I'm well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware that this refinement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counting overvotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize IRV as being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect."  Yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates are eliminated when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically "white lies"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- from both the FairVote organization and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting (who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coalition), both of whom are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-funded.  To be balanced here, The Election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science Foundation also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm attacking their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize that sometimes those organizations are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to keep things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple when they talk to voters.  Yet some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become oversimplifications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's important to understand that the fans of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting so many signatures on their current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide petition to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote had not been so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough signatures on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "better kind of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice voting").  That Eugene-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition-based referendum has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting; rather I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide ranked choice ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative on the November 2024 ballot.  They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing this by pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a misrepresentation because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the already-scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes" so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording is compatible with future software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countable has contributed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this attack against IRV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm frustrated.  And I'm angry.  I've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for three decades, although previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mayoral election and STV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for city council elections.  (In spite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition from a fan of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting who was on the charter amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked-choice-voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum that will appear statewide on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November ballot -- with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, because of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence.  (Fans of STAR voting also testified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against this bill.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR fans, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election Science Foundation is undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support for Portland's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots for electing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our governor and our members of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not intending to suggest there is any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations.  Yet I do suspect that some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the donations going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these organizations would decline if they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to increase cooperation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and avoid misrepresentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that the Oregon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature being the first state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial tipping point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for civilization!  (Other states that have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had to do it by gathering signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petitions.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My anger is directed at the people who undermine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this progress toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That better software will correctly count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mythical "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (independence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticized as either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My request to all election-method reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations and individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least to Oregon voters, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the November 2024 ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum passes with support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone still reading this far, thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading my rant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <electionmethods at votefair.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods at votefair.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >      > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Center is an independent entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >      > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Ranked Choice Voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affiliated with FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Then why does RCVRC have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that the leader of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     the FairVote organization has been pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for decades?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Especially, I'd like to understand why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Oregon election officials the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     recommended option.  That's worse than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the remaining rankings!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     That skipping option works in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where a voter hand-writes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     number next to each candidate's name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (They don't have to worry about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     "ballot real estate" because there is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one box for each candidate.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we mark ovals in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     "choice" columns.  And where ballot real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estate is very important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     (In fact, the upcoming statewide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     just a limited number of contests because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election officials were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     concerned that adopting it would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon ballots to require more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     than one sheet of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     I see that your website --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     elections "The scanner will reject any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot where you mark more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     one candidate for the same rank  – in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, if you fill in more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     than one oval in the same column."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly count those marks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     (Just pair up equivalent ballots and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate those "paired" ballots in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     equal numbers to those same-ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >     <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231217/14aa7ec2/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list