[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Tue Jun 4 16:40:35 PDT 2024
Great idea if you never want anything to change. But I wouldn’t expect
anything else from someone who repeats the same bigoted-dogma without
engaging in discussion…in direct violation of the rules of this
mailing-list!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 4:44 PM 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
>>
> ----
> 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/20240604/3c10901a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list