[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters

[Michael Ossipoff]

In fact, some of us suggested to Richie allowing equal-ranking, each vote
counted whole, & he immediately refused it.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:51 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/c412d360/attachment-0001.htm>