[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 4 18:23:24 PDT 2024
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 16:41 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:
>
>
> Do you have evidence of this?
>
I forgot to tape the phone conversation or file & store the letter
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 5:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> ----
>> 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/d9efa266/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list