[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Tue Jun 4 18:24:28 PDT 2024
Oh that’s a shame. Don’t make claims you can’t back up then :D
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:23 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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/e1480ab2/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list