[EM] More intellectual dishonesty from those who accuse me of such. (was: A rant about IRV and it's recent history in Alaska.)

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 12/05/2024 12:38 AM EST Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 
> Because rb-j is an intellectually dishonest crank who doesn’t want to be confused by facts after he’s made up his mind
> 

So, in the previous post, I was sorta picking on Greg's organization in Massachusetts for posting an objective falsehood on their front page.  Now it's Michael's turn (or that of his organization).

On the front page https://rankthevote.us/ they say:

> Ranked Choice Voting gives a strong voice to all voters in our elections, and ensures candidates with the broadest support get to govern. No more “hold your nose” votes. Ranked Choice Voting is a simple change that gives voters the option to rank candidates for office in the order they prefer them: 1, 2, 3. 

This is true.  This is why I support Ranked-Choice Voting, but not IRV.  But I doubt Michael is willing to admit that "ensures" is an overstatement or overrating the product they are selling.  "Ensure" means the same as guarantee and IRV does not guarantee that the candidate with broadest support get to govern.  This assurance, of course, has been disproven in Burlington 2009 and Alaska August 2022.  So then, in these elections, there were a large component of voters (17% in Burlington, 18% in Alaska) that would have been better served by "holding their nose" and voting for their lesser evil candidate.  But they are promised here that they don't have to hold their noses, and the consequence of that trust was that their vote literally caused the election of their most disliked candidate.

> ✔ More Expression 
> As a voter, Ranked Choice Voting allows you to express your full range of views on the ballot — not just one. You can vote for your true favorite, and you can compromise with your backup rankings.

This is true but it's about the ranked ballot.  Just because voters are allowed to rank their candidates, including backup rankings, does not mean that the method used to count the votes and identify the winner will serve their political interests in doing so.

> ✔ Less Divisiveness 
> By allowing voters to rank candidates in the order they like them, Ranked Choice voting helps consolidate, rather than divide, competing factions. Candidates need the support of the broadest possible coalition of their constituents — not just a vocal minority.

This has actually be shown to be false in both Burlington and Alaska.  IRV did not consolidate the GOP vote in Alaska.  It did not resolve the split vote among the majority of Republicans.  In Burlington, RCV did not consolidate the "non-Progressive" vote (the Democrats and Republicans).  In both cases, the weaker of the two candidates were advanced to the final IRV round and lost, where if the stronger of the two candidates went into the final IRV round, they would have defeated the candidate that IRV ended up electing.

> ✔ More Positivity 
> Ranked Choice Voting encourages positive campaigns. Candidates need to earn the 2nd and 3rd choice votes of their opponent’s supporters by appealing to what they have in common. With Ranked Choice Voting, politicians are rewarded for campaigning on issues and showing compromise, not for tearing down the other side. 

It's a subjective claim.  I would like to believe it's true, but when IRV fails, as it did in Alaska August 2022 and Burlington 2009, there was widespread and acrimonious division and negativity.

Further on this page https://rankthevote.wpengine.com/?page_id=10#howrcv 

> For the first time ever, a voter now has the power of backup choices. This means that if their favorite (1st choice) cannot win the election, their vote instantly counts toward their next choice. This type of power helps voters succeed in two kinds of election scenarios:
> 
> As a voter, with Ranked Choice Voting, you can always vote for the candidate you truly love without the fear of “throwing your vote away”. Even if your favorite is not a front-runner, you have backup choices, so your vote is never wasted, and your voice is always heard.

There are several falsehoods in these claims.

> if their favorite (1st choice) cannot win the election, their vote instantly counts toward their next choice.

That's false.  If a voter's favorite (1st-choic)e candidate is the loser i the final round, their next (2nd-choice) vote is *never* counted.  In Alaska 2022, 20% of the entire electorate (1 out of 5 voters) that voted for Sarah Palin and a second choice never had their 2nd-choice vote counted.  In Burlington 2009, 22% of the electorate (2 out of 9 voters) that voted for Kurt Wright and a second choice never had their 2nd-choice vote counted.

> As a voter, with Ranked Choice Voting, you can always vote for the candidate you truly love without the fear of “throwing your vote away”.

That's just a falsehood.  These 20% threw their vote away.  Now a small fraction of those voters were not harmed, because their second-choice vote (that was never counted) ended up for the IRV winner.  But the vastly larger portion of the voters for these two losing candidates *were* harmed because their vote that *was* thrown away would have changed the outcome of the election.

> Ballots are counted in “instant runoff rounds” where contestants receiving the fewest top-choices are eliminated and their supporters’ ballots are then counted toward the next choice indicated on each.

This is true.  It is essentially what IRV is.  But it sometimes harms RCV voters.

> This process “consolidates” the voting power of like-minded voters, no matter how many candidates are running, rather than seeing the strength of their votes diluted and divided between multiple similar candidates. It means no more “spoiler problem”, ...

This is a lie.  Explicitly proven false, but they keep repeating it. This is the intellectual dishonesty that comes from Michael's organization.

> These rounds repeat until one candidate has the support of more than half of the voters.

This is also a lie.  Also explicitly proven false.  Sometimes *no* candidate gets the support of half of the voters.

______________________________


So here is another lie coming from a different RCV organization.  I'll point you to an image rather than quote it.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JNn0b1QxEuZBwPPaU-F6NliwbORqaZn_/view

Can you see the falsehood and the intellectual dishonesty in it?

Now Michael (or Greg or anyone), will you defend your accusation of my being "intellectually dishonest"?  You're going to have to be specific and objective about it.

Because I am saying that both of your organizations are explicitly and objectively intellectually dishonest.  Your organizations are lying and your organizations *know* that they are lying.  And they don't correct the inaccuracies.  But salesmen seldom correct inaccuracies that promote the product they are selling.

(Just FYI, in my professional venue, I go after the Monster Cable people that continue to lie about claims regarding their very expensive product.)

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.