[EM] Reply to an IRVist post on December 17th

[Michael Garman]

In your scenario, the candidate you like second most gets eliminated first,
and the transfers indicate that the candidate you like least is more
popular than the one you like most. That’s unfortunate for you, but it
doesn’t mean IRV is inherently flawed.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:18 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 23:32 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
> wrote:
>
>>
> Your problem here is that the electorate doesn’t agree with your
>> preferences, not that the system is broken.
>>
>
> What system? RCV? It isn’t broken, but it’s being fraudulently-promoted.
>
> It’s about lying.
>
> The public have a right to know what they’re getting & what it will do,
> when they enact a voting-system.
>
> Is the false promotion intended to sell them something that they wouldn’t
> buy without the lying?
>
> Why else lie?
>
> That isn’t the conduct of someone who cares about the electorate or the
> population.
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:50 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greg—
>>>
>>> In my example, I said that first Good gets eliminated, & then Best gets
>>> eliminated.
>>>
>>> So all that remains is Worst.
>>>
>>> I made a typo in my post. I meant to say that the Good-supporters either
>>> didn’t vote a 2nd choice, or else their 2nd-choice transfer was to  Worst.
>>>
>>> …but, when wrote that, I accidentally said “Best-supporters”, when I
>>> meant “Good-supporters”.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 17:18 Greg Dennis <greg.dennis at voterchoicema.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hold on a second, if Good gets eliminated, there are only two
>>>> candidates (Best and Worst) remaining, and whichever of those two with the
>>>> most votes wins. That sample ballot counts for "Best" in the final round --
>>>> it is never counted for "Worst."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024, 5:15 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it [your ballot] doesn't[count for your 2nd choice] , unless your
>>>>> 2nd choice is still there. Oops !!! You &
>>>>>
>>>>> Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe"
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Garman said:
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that person have any idea what he’s saying?
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Say the election is between Best, Good, &Worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> You rank Best>Good>Worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Good gets eliminated first, & then Best gets eliminated, & either hir
>>>>> ballots don’t have a 2nd choice, or hir transfers go to Worst.
>>>>> According to our friend here, now Good is no longer your 2nd choice.
>>>>> The elimination of Good makes Worst your 2nd choice, & so FairVote’s
>>>>> promise is kept:  Your 2nd choice, Worst is elected !!
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, but wait, it gets even better:
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Worst isn’t only your 2nd choice now:  By our IRVist friend’s
>>>>> definition of “choice”, now Worst becomes your 1st choice (because
>>>>> he’s the only remaining candidate).
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations !! You’ve elected your 1st choice, Worst !!!~
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury: I present to you exhibit B, further
>>>>> confirmation of the universal astounding dishonesty of the promotion of RCV.
>>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>> 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/20240205/fa3daca6/attachment-0001.htm>