[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 5 07:52:40 PDT 2024
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 01:18 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
>
Maybe. Probably. …but it was suggested because it’s better garbage than
ordinary IRV.
I wouldn’t advocate garbage, but I suggested that garbage to Richie because
it’s a “Lesser-Of-2-Garbages”.
At least it avoids IRV’s worst.
[I don’t have any comments farther down in the text. It’s easier to say
that than to delete the unreplied text.]
>
>
> 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 - 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/20240605/d5f0b685/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list