[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
 > First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...

Multiple reasons.  Here are a few:

* Lots of voters, including me, have difficulty thinking in terms of 
ratings for governmental elections.  Even movie ratings are head 
scratchers for me.  If I enjoyed a movie I give it 5 stars, if I hated a 
comedy movie that didn't even make me smile I give it 1 star, if I hated 
a movie with a bad plot and bad acting I give it 1 star, sometimes I'll 
give a movie 4 stars, otherwise I don't rate it because I can't decide 
how I should rate it.  Especially if the flaw was my failure to 
recognize that it's a kind of movie I don't like (such as thriller, 
horror, etc.) but which other people would like.

* Although star ratings on Amazon and movies are very familiar, it's the 
calculated overall ratings that are familiar.  When someone chooses how 
to rate a product or movie, lots of us don't know how to rate it in a 
way that really summarizes that we like some aspects and dislike other 
aspects.

* Every cardinal/rating method I know of is vulnerable to what used to 
be called a "drama queen" meaning someone who exaggerates importance. 
Expressed another way ...

* Rating methods are vulnerable to what I'm calling the "clapping 
tactic."  In a talent/costume contest where the winner is based on the 
loudness of clapping, I get extra influence by just pretending to clap 
-- with no sound -- for the contestants I don't want to win.  Of course 
I clap loudly for the one or two contestants I want to win.  Of course 
this would become approval voting if everyone did it.

* It's easy for me to mark a ranked choice ballot.  That's because I can 
easily recognize which candidate I like better between any two 
candidates.  If I can't decide which I like better, I rank them the same 
-- if the ballot instructions don't tell me to avoid mythical "overvotes."

* Ranked choice ballots can be marked as a rating ballot -- IF the same 
choice column can be marked more than once.  It's just FairVote's 
primitive idea of ignoring "overvotes" that prevents a voter from 
"rating" two candidates the same on a ranked choice ballot.  In 
contrast, a rating ballot cannot be marked as a ranked choice ballot 
without losing influence that's available by skipping some choice columns.


 > Second: if your complaint is that voters might exaggerate their
 > ratings, I don't see why this would be applicable to STAR, but
 > not other systems that allow equal-rankings. It's a dominant
 > strategy in score, but STAR isn't score, and the runoff
 > prevents this.

The top-two runoff in STAR just modifies the exaggeration tactic.  In 
Score the tactic is to only mark the highest and lowest ratings.  In 
STAR, a simple tactic is to avoid marking level 2 and level 3.  This 
allows the voter to have influence during the runoff if the runoff is 
between their level zero and level 1 candidates, and it provides 
influence between the voter's level 4 and level 5 candidates.

More sophisticated marking tactics become available to an organization 
(to recommend to their members) by hiring pollsters plus vote-counting 
experts such as those of us who participate in this E-M forum.  This 
strategizing doesn't work if ranked choice ballots are used with a good 
counting method.


 > Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR.

I too "have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR."

STAR fans are claiming that IRV is vulnerable to vote splitting!

They do not offer any evidence to support this claim.  Even in the 
scholarly article by Quinn, Wolk, & Ogren, they present this implied 
association without any evidence.  Nor does the article suggest what 
they want the words "vote splitting" to mean.

My question is, how can IRV be vulnerable to vote splitting without STAR 
also being vulnerable to vote splitting?  (Humor warning; That's 
splitting hairs!)


 > Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
 > algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.

Why didn't they advocate STAR-PR for electing Eugene city council members?

That's what minorities and women want.  And employees would like it for 
fighting against money-backed employers.  And tenants would like it for 
fighting against money-backed landlords.

Instead the STAR initiative was to continue with single-winner 
elections.  Ten years ago this single-winner reform would have been a 
worthwhile reform.  Now, with Portland already having adopted STV 
starting with this year's November election, single-winner methods are 
becoming recognized as obsolete for city councils and, hopefully soon, 
state legislatures.


Thank you for your questions!

Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy



On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> Hi Richard! You might want to shorten this :) I skimmed it, but I might 
> have missed a few things. I have some questions.
> 
> First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? I really 
> doubt ballot design is the most important part of a reform proposal. 
>  From what I can tell, there's a lot of research showing spoiled ballots 
> are much more common when ranking, even if you allow equal-ratings. 
> Ranked ballots still allow for skipped ranks and voters who misinterpret 
> ranks as ratings. There's a huge spike in the number of spoiled ballots 
> when you have 4 or 5 candidates, because people mistake the rankings for 
> a 1-4 or 1-5 scale. (And lots of cities use cumulative voting for city 
> councils, making things more confusing!)
> 
> Second: if your complaint is that voters might exaggerate their ratings, 
> I don't see why this would be applicable to STAR, but not other systems 
> that allow equal-rankings. It's a dominant strategy in score, but STAR 
> isn't score, and the runoff prevents this.
> 
> Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR. 
> Spoiler effects, sure, because STAR fails IIA. But I think of 
> vote-splitting as meaning clone-negativity (whereas STAR is 
> intentionally a bit clone-positive, to encourage parties to run at least 
> 2 candidates).
> 
> Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation 
> algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:41 PM 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
>