[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters

[Closed Limelike Curves]

>
> * Every cardinal/rating method I know of is vulnerable to what used to
>
be called a "drama queen" meaning someone who exaggerates importance.
> Expressed another way ...
>
I'm very interested in fleshing this out a bit more. In some situations,
this is the main drawback of score voting; min-maxing means your ballot
expresses less information than a full ranking and produces worse results
than most Condorcet methods. But in other situations, this is a huge
strength of rated voting that I think we really need to keep.

The place where this is bad is the zero-information setting. True zero-info
almost never exists, but low-information settings crop up if you have a
sincere Condorcet cycle, several clones, or a nonpartisan local election.
In these settings, it would be very nice to have voters be perfectly honest.

The place where this is good is in the high-information setting where
voters follow the polls, or know . Then, every "sensible" voting method
will encourage exaggeration: if you rank or rate the best frontrunner at
the top, this maximizes your support for them, and therefore your impact on
the election. Similarly, ranking or rating a candidate last minimizes your
support for them.

The only difference in the case of cardinal/rating methods is you can do
this without being forced to engage in order-reversal. This is a big
f*cking deal. Lots of voters will refuse to engage in decapitation
to protect a Condorcet winner (e.g. Begich in Alaska): it's
counterintuitive, makes voters feel icky, and reduces their favorite
candidate's shot at winning. Even if they *were* willing, this kind of
dishonest order-reversal strategy can make it impossible to identify the
sincere Condorcet winner. ("Hmm, is RFK Jr. trailing because of the brain
worm or the major parties burying him?")

In high-information situations, this kind of approval-thresholding is the
least-damaging kind of strategy:
1. It's simple and obvious, so parties can't manipulate voters by lying.
2. It has a single stable equilibrium point, so you don't need money or
party endorsements to prove you're a viable candidate.
3. It's sincere, so it lets you identify the Condorcet-winner and the
Condorcet runner-up.
4. It guarantees that if voters follow the polls, they'll choose the
Condorcet winner.

So, I suppose my real question is: is there any voting system that
satisfies both properties? Sincere favorite and later-no-help are enough
for voters who follow good polls to work out the Condorcet winner, by
making min-maxing the optimal strategy. On the other hand, I don't know if
they're necessary or if they're compatible with honesty in the
zero-information case.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 10:34 AM Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:

> On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
>  > First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...
>
> Multiple reasons.  Here are a few:
>
> * Lots of voters, including me, have difficulty thinking in terms of
> ratings for governmental elections.  Even movie ratings are head
> scratchers for me.  If I enjoyed a movie I give it 5 stars, if I hated a
> comedy movie that didn't even make me smile I give it 1 star, if I hated
> a movie with a bad plot and bad acting I give it 1 star, sometimes I'll
> give a movie 4 stars, otherwise I don't rate it because I can't decide
> how I should rate it.  Especially if the flaw was my failure to
> recognize that it's a kind of movie I don't like (such as thriller,
> horror, etc.) but which other people would like.
>
> * Although star ratings on Amazon and movies are very familiar, it's the
> calculated overall ratings that are familiar.  When someone chooses how
> to rate a product or movie, lots of us don't know how to rate it in a
> way that really summarizes that we like some aspects and dislike other
> aspects.
>
> * Every cardinal/rating method I know of is vulnerable to what used to
> be called a "drama queen" meaning someone who exaggerates importance.
> Expressed another way ...
>
> * Rating methods are vulnerable to what I'm calling the "clapping
> tactic."  In a talent/costume contest where the winner is based on the
> loudness of clapping, I get extra influence by just pretending to clap
> -- with no sound -- for the contestants I don't want to win.  Of course
> I clap loudly for the one or two contestants I want to win.  Of course
> this would become approval voting if everyone did it.
>
> * It's easy for me to mark a ranked choice ballot.  That's because I can
> easily recognize which candidate I like better between any two
> candidates.  If I can't decide which I like better, I rank them the same
> -- if the ballot instructions don't tell me to avoid mythical "overvotes."
>
> * Ranked choice ballots can be marked as a rating ballot -- IF the same
> choice column can be marked more than once.  It's just FairVote's
> primitive idea of ignoring "overvotes" that prevents a voter from
> "rating" two candidates the same on a ranked choice ballot.  In
> contrast, a rating ballot cannot be marked as a ranked choice ballot
> without losing influence that's available by skipping some choice columns.
>
>
>  > Second: if your complaint is that voters might exaggerate their
>  > ratings, I don't see why this would be applicable to STAR, but
>  > not other systems that allow equal-rankings. It's a dominant
>  > strategy in score, but STAR isn't score, and the runoff
>  > prevents this.
>
> The top-two runoff in STAR just modifies the exaggeration tactic.  In
> Score the tactic is to only mark the highest and lowest ratings.  In
> STAR, a simple tactic is to avoid marking level 2 and level 3.  This
> allows the voter to have influence during the runoff if the runoff is
> between their level zero and level 1 candidates, and it provides
> influence between the voter's level 4 and level 5 candidates.
>
> More sophisticated marking tactics become available to an organization
> (to recommend to their members) by hiring pollsters plus vote-counting
> experts such as those of us who participate in this E-M forum.  This
> strategizing doesn't work if ranked choice ballots are used with a good
> counting method.
>
>
>  > Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR.
>
> I too "have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR."
>
> STAR fans are claiming that IRV is vulnerable to vote splitting!
>
> They do not offer any evidence to support this claim.  Even in the
> scholarly article by Quinn, Wolk, & Ogren, they present this implied
> association without any evidence.  Nor does the article suggest what
> they want the words "vote splitting" to mean.
>
> My question is, how can IRV be vulnerable to vote splitting without STAR
> also being vulnerable to vote splitting?  (Humor warning; That's
> splitting hairs!)
>
>
>  > Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
>  > algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.
>
> Why didn't they advocate STAR-PR for electing Eugene city council members?
>
> That's what minorities and women want.  And employees would like it for
> fighting against money-backed employers.  And tenants would like it for
> fighting against money-backed landlords.
>
> Instead the STAR initiative was to continue with single-winner
> elections.  Ten years ago this single-winner reform would have been a
> worthwhile reform.  Now, with Portland already having adopted STV
> starting with this year's November election, single-winner methods are
> becoming recognized as obsolete for city councils and, hopefully soon,
> state legislatures.
>
>
> Thank you for your questions!
>
> Richard Fobes
> the VoteFair guy
>
>
>
> On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> > Hi Richard! You might want to shorten this :) I skimmed it, but I might
> > have missed a few things. I have some questions.
> >
> > First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? I really
> > doubt ballot design is the most important part of a reform proposal.
> >  From what I can tell, there's a lot of research showing spoiled ballots
> > are much more common when ranking, even if you allow equal-ratings.
> > Ranked ballots still allow for skipped ranks and voters who misinterpret
> > ranks as ratings. There's a huge spike in the number of spoiled ballots
> > when you have 4 or 5 candidates, because people mistake the rankings for
> > a 1-4 or 1-5 scale. (And lots of cities use cumulative voting for city
> > councils, making things more confusing!)
> >
> > Second: if your complaint is that voters might exaggerate their ratings,
> > I don't see why this would be applicable to STAR, but not other systems
> > that allow equal-rankings. It's a dominant strategy in score, but STAR
> > isn't score, and the runoff prevents this.
> >
> > Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR.
> > Spoiler effects, sure, because STAR fails IIA. But I think of
> > vote-splitting as meaning clone-negativity (whereas STAR is
> > intentionally a bit clone-positive, to encourage parties to run at least
> > 2 candidates).
> >
> > Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
> > algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:41 PM 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/20240604/325eb128/attachment-0001.htm>