[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
 > Are you saying that the IRV that the  November referendum would enact
 > allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.

YES

 > …&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?

It avoids this "counting detail" by not mentioning anything about it.

Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy


On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>   VoteFair Guy:
> 
> Are you saying that the IRV that the  November referendum would enact 
> allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.
> 
> That’s a yes or no question.
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> …&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?
> 
> Does every one of your top-ranked candidates get a point (“vote”) from 
> your ballot, or does each of them get a useless little fraction of a 
> vote divided among them?  …You know, split-vote in a method that you say 
> doesn’t have a split-vote problem.
> 
> An no, don’t embark on some long evasion or preface. I doubt that people 
> will be willing to search for your answer in a long mass of 
> meaning-mystery text.
> 
> The reason I ask is, you’ve been promoting the referendum as what it 
> would be if were something different from what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 17:41 Richard, the VoteFair guy 
> <electionmethods at votefair.org <mailto:electionmethods at votefair.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR voting
>     promoters.
> 
>     Here's some background info for the benefit of election-method forum
>     readers:
> 
>     In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will vote to approve or
>     defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting for electing
>     Oregon
>     governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the Oregon secretary of
>     state).  This referendum was passed by the Oregon state legislature!
>     This is huge!  All other states that have adopted ranked choice voting
>     have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their
>     state's ballots.
> 
>     Here's the full text of the referendum:
> 
>     https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled <https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled>
> 
>     The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4.  Importantly
>     the
>     words do not mention anything about "overvotes."  Also importantly it's
>     well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future.  Also
>     it gives explicit permission to later adopt the single-transferable
>     vote
>     (STV) for electing city-council members (which Portland recently
>     adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.
> 
>     Note:  The following "open letter" is long because election-method
>     reform is not a simple topic, and numerous misunderstandings are
>     involved.
> 
>     ........................
> 
>     Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:
> 
>     The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on
>     the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the
>     promoters of
>     STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
> 
>     These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing
>     mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming
>     statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice
>     voting for some Oregon elections.
> 
> 
>     I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting promoters, have
>     correctly identified relevant information.
> 
>     * Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history of promoting
>     misrepresentations.
> 
>     * Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization was a big source of
>     money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed to Eugene voters.
> 
>     * Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting initiative.
> 
>     * Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for "opposition" arguments
>     in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene voter.
> 
>     * Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's pamphlet helped
>     defeat the STAR voting initiative.
> 
> 
>     (E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet:
>     https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet <https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet> )
> 
> 
>     However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are
>     overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR voting
>     was defeated.
> 
>     Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
> 
>     * You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy, without
>     understanding they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
>     number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
>     much better than STAR ballots.
> 
>     * Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the
>     unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when
>     a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round.  Yet
>     your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff
>     step, which is not what they were criticizing.
> 
>     * You seem to dismiss the important difference between your
>     single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the
>     single-transferable vote (STV).  STV really does increase
>     representation
>     for minorities, women, etc.  In fact STV with three seats per district
>     (as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
>     percent of that district's voters.  Yes, a single-winner method such as
>     STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
>     guarantee from zero to 50 percent.  But that does not reach the higher
>     level that minorities want, and deserve.
> 
>     * Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR
>     voting
>     is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter
>     advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
>     single-transferable vote (STV).  Remember STV will be used in Portland
>     in November to elect our city councilors.
> 
>     * Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote
>     splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a
>     lie.  This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.
>     If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting
>     avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the
>     same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote
>     organization.
> 
>     * The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR voting wasted lots
>     of words talking about issues that are not as important as the above
>     issues.  In my opinion these minor issues include the size of
>     summarized
>     ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the monotonicity
>     criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.
> 
> 
>     Clarification:  Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends
>     where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and
>     where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted
>     as a
>     single round of ballot marking and counting.  However the
>     strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental
>     elections.  That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating
>     their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.
> 
> 
>     Now let's talk about possible future collaborations, and barriers to
>     collaboration.
> 
>     I too dislike the FairVote organization.  I've been fighting against
>     them for three decades.
> 
>     Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the fee (about $2,000 I
>     believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from me,
>     Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November referendum,
>     I will gladly accept their assistance.
> 
>     Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission to use my name as
>     being in support of the upcoming November referendum, I will agree
>     -- if
>     the promotion does not imply blind support for the FairVote
>     organization
>     and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska elections yielded the
>     correct winner.
> 
>     I'm open to this collaboration because they, the FairVote organization,
>     and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS are needed
>     for
>     election-method reform.
> 
>     Reaching areas of agreement, and working in collaboration, is how
>     election-method reform is going to happen.
> 
>     This brings us to the core point in this letter.
> 
> 
>     "Voters must be allowed to mark two or more candidates at the same
>     preference level."
> 
>     These are the words I spoke to the Oregon legislative "rules" committee
>     several years ago, back when the FairVote organization was
>     attempting to
>     push their flawed idea of how they think ranked choice ballots
>     should be
>     counted.
> 
>     Because of your testimony against that flawed FairVote bill, and
>     because
>     of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these bills later worked
>     with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically improved
>     wording that is now in the November referendum.
> 
>     The referendum wording does not contain any mention of "overvotes."
>     This is huge!  Of course "overvote" is FairVote's terminology for
>     marking two or more candidates in the same choice column.
> 
>     This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take credit for
>     dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!
> 
>     If you want, you can think of this refinement as a concession by the
>     fans of the FairVote organization.
> 
>     Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is finally being exposed.
> 
>     The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have the first statewide
>     Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can be using software
>     that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."
> 
>     As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at the same preference
>     level, and when the counting reaches that pattern, that ballot can be
>     paired with another ballot that has the same equivalent pattern, and
>     one
>     of those two ballots is counted as support for one of those two
>     candidates, and the other ballot is counted as support for the other
>     candidate.  (Software can simulate this counting using decimal numbers
>     and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must not
>     use the decimal-number shortcut.)
> 
>     The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical "overvotes"
>     is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded election
>     software can be tested.  Writing software is easy, but getting it
>     certified requires certified data.
> 
>     The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum wording calls this
>     "overvote" issue a "counting detail."
> 
>     Why is this "counting detail" so important?
> 
>     This software refinement eliminates a valid criticism that you, STAR
>     voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of instant-runoff
>     voting.
> 
>     Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR scholarly article where
>     the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice ballots
>     to be "user unfriendly."  It's a misrepresentation because it does not
>     apply to ranked choice voting when mythical "overvotes" are correctly
>     counted.  (There's another related user-friendly issue I'll get to
>     shortly.)
> 
> 
>     (E-M forum aside:  Here's a link to that scholarly article:
>     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3
>     <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3> )
> 
> 
>     Yes, your "user unfriendly" criticism does apply when voters are
>     told to
>     avoid "overvotes."  Especially when a voter wants to rank a strongly
>     disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and there are not as
>     many
>     choice columns as candidates.
> 
>     However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted correctly, election
>     data
>     will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots.  That will undermine
>     part of your characterization of ranked choice ballots as being "user
>     unfriendly."
> 
>     Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no "overvote" limitation will
>     allow a voter to RATE the candidates.
> 
>     Just like on a score ballot!
> 
>     This means the voters who think STAR ballots are easier to mark will be
>     able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it were a STAR ballot!
>     They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse the left-to-right
>     orientation difference -- and ignore the column labels -- words instead
>     of stars and numbers.
> 
>     STAR voting fans correctly point out that some people prefer to
>     think in
>     terms of ratings rather than rankings.  (Other voters regard ratings as
>     more difficult to assign.)
> 
>     When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a voter
>     can use either a rating or ranking approach, whichever they prefer!
> 
>     To repeat, this correct counting of so-called overvotes is allowed by
>     the wording in November's referendum because it avoids saying anything
>     about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."
> 
> 
>     There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy, and you, the
>     promoters of STAR voting, agree.  And where we disagree with the
>     FairVote organization.
> 
>     The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is not always the least
>     popular.  This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and the
>     recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong winner.
> 
>     You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy to see in Yee
>     diagrams.
> 
>     You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked choice ballots are
>     "user
>     unfriendly."  Specifically a close election can require some voters to
>     mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the fairest
>     ("correct") election result.
> 
>     Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user unfriendliness" will
>     disappear when better election software becomes available.
> 
>     The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to defend the failures in
>     Burlington and Alaska.  This is part of why lots of people like STAR
>     voting, and why they regard the FairVote organization as their enemy.
> 
>     Fortunately the referendum wording is written clearly, in a way that
>     makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw in the future.
> 
>     I believe that adding just two sentences might be sufficient to correct
>     this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle issue.
> 
>     Specifically, the referendum's counting method can be changed to
>     implement Benham's method.  Just add words such as: "If a round of
>     counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that candidate is elected; a
>     pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would win every
>     one-on-one
>     contest against every remaining candidate."
> 
>     Or, the wording can be changed to implement the Ranked Choice Including
>     Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method.  In this case the added words
>     would
>     say something like:  "Pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when
>     they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose
>     every one-on-one contest against every remaining candidate."
> 
>     The result would be an election method that overcomes the criticisms
>     against the version of instant-runoff voting that the FairVote
>     organization foolishly tries to defend.
> 
>     Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can, with the addition of
>     two sentences, yield all the most significant election-method
>     advantages
>     of STAR voting.
> 
>     Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not welcome this
>     interpretation.
> 
>     Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a
>     reasonably-well-designed method that significantly differs from what
>     the
>     FairVote organization originally tried to push through the Oregon
>     legislature.
> 
> 
>     Now I'll discuss a concern.
> 
>     I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters, might try to
>     sabotage
>     the November referendum.  That might be based on your belief that the
>     FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this referendum is an
>     opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene initiative.
> 
>     Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all Oregon voters, the
>     majority of whom want a better election system.  Remember it would hurt
>     Eugene voters too!
> 
>     And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had to
>     vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of independent
>     candidate
>     Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder.  The referendum
>     will
>     solve that vote-splitting problem.
> 
>     In case it's important, I did not express opposition against the STAR
>     voting initiative.  I remained neutral because I used to know lots of
>     people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a better election
>     system.  (I agree that STAR voting is better than plurality.)  In fact,
>     long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need to be using
>     "order-of-preference ballots."  That was back in the mid 1990's, long
>     before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long before the name "ranked
>     choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many dances
>     in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived there.  Getting
>     back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see how Eugene voters
>     would respond to your initiative.
> 
>     The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge number of Eugene
>     voters correctly recognize that ranked choice ballots, with a
>     well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR ballots.
> 
> 
>     In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the November referendum
>     could lead to planet-wide suicide!
> 
>     Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did all the coursework
>     for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at Oregon State
>     University.
>        Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National Center for
>     Atmospheric
>     Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one of their climate
>     models.  So I have known since the 1970s that our planet is in a very
>     bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice coverage at the north
>     and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which
>     increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the snow
>     and ice melt.  That understanding is part of what motivates me to
>     pursue
>     election-method reform with a sense of urgency.
> 
>     Adopting a better election system is the tipping point that will switch
>     governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.
> 
>     Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon after
>     we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon state
>     representatives.  (That's the next step after adopting this
>     referendum.)
>        (And consider that better economic prosperity will reduce
>     domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)
> 
> 
>     In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is giving us this huge
>     opportunity to implement election-method reform that will help
>     civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.
> 
>     At the national level, higher levels of democracy will "uncrazify" our
>     crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with problem-solving
>     leaders.  They will replace any members of Congress who persist in
>     being
>     puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.
> 
>     You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make this happen.  You
>     pushed back against the FairVote organization's flawed version of
>     "their" vote-counting method so that Oregon election-method experts
>     could write a well-designed referendum.
> 
> 
>     I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of the funding to
>     promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of instant-runoff voting.
>     That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent me a clipping of the
>     article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting that
>     method.  Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard
>     each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature.  If
>     you should want to meet via video to ask any questions, I'm open to
>     that
>     form of communication.
> 
>     While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer I was reminded
>     that
>     Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become Oregon governor because
>     of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley as a
>     spoiler candidate).  That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have been
>     a great governor.
> 
>     In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that, if
>     it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave, in
>     spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler candidate.
> 
> 
>     All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be proud of.
> 
>     * You have helped educate huge numbers of voters about the need for
>     better ballots.
> 
>     * You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote splitting.
> 
>     * Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark more than one
>     candidate at the same preference level.
> 
>     * You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie that the candidate
>     with the fewest transferred votes is always least popular.
> 
> 
>     Let's build on the election-method reform foundation we have been
>     building together throughout many years.
> 
>     I look forward to working with you, rather than against you, as we take
>     advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has wisely
>     given to us.
> 
>     We don't have time for any more misunderstandings.  Glaciers are
>     melting
>     faster than elections are being improved.
> 
>     Richard Fobes
>     The VoteFair guy
>     ----
>     Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
>     <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>