[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