[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Chris Benham
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Wed Jun 5 01:18:02 PDT 2024
Mike,
> In fact, some of us suggested to Richie allowing equal-ranking, each
> vote counted whole, & he immediately refused it.
And he was very correct to do so, because the resulting ER-IRV (whole)
method is garbage.
Unlike proper Hare/STV ("normal IRV") it fails Mutual Dominant Third.
From a May 2014 EM post of mine:
The example I give below is also an example of failure of Unburiable
Mutual Dominant Third.
"I'd like to suggest a simplified and generalized version of that,
"Strategically Invulnerable Mutual Third" (SIMT):
*If a set S of candidates are all voted above all non-S candidates on
more than a third of the ballots, and if all the S
candidates pairwise-beat some non-S candidate X, then X can't win.*
This implies compliance with MDT, and means that a sincere MDT winner is
invulnerable to any sort of "offensive" strategy.
ER-IRV(whole) fails Mutual Dominant Third (MDT).
05 A=C
31 A>B
34 B>A
30 C>B
B is voted above all others on more than a third of the ballots and B is
the CW, but ER-IRV(whole), aka AIRV, elects A."
Then there is the question of whether or not the new method has a
majority stopping rule or not. In normal Hare it can't make any
difference, but in the ER(whole) version it does.
Without it the method is farcically vulnerable to Push-over strategy:
"On 5/21/2014 , C.Benham wrote:
45 A=C (sincere is A or A>B)
35 B>A
20 C>B
B is the sincere IRV winner (and sincere CW), but if the method is
ER-IRV(whole) then B is eliminated and A wins.
(This example also works if you change the 45/35/20 numbers to, say,
49/48/3)."
With a majority stopping rule this strategy doesn't work so well. In
this example it would fail because C would get a score of 65 in the
first round.
With it the method fails Irrelevant Ballots Independence (like
Bucklin). That could perhaps be fixed by replacing the majority
stopping rule with a Dominant Candidate stopping rule, i.e. stop when
the leading candidate's score exceeds that candidate's maximum pairwise
opposition score from any remaining candidate.
The other thing I don't like about is that we lose Hare's simple
sincere zero-info. strategy of just ranking sincerely. With this method
the voter should probably rank equal-top all the candidates they would
approve if the method was Approval and just sincerely rank the rest.
Chris B.
On 5/06/2024 6:36 am, Michael Ossipoff 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 - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240605/fa6e112c/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list