[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 4 13:51:17 PDT 2024
Presumably they’ll consult FairVote, unless they’ve already received
FairVote’s advice.
Richie was always very adamant about refusing any mitigation of IRV’s
strategic trainwreck.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:33 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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/20240604/8f12df4d/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list