[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 4 13:33:42 PDT 2024
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:
> 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.
If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
>
>
> 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
> >
> ----
> 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/20240604/c3f3f6be/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list