[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 19:52 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> Still an error that led to lies. Seems bad!
>

Are you *trying* to sound silly?

It was an error. There weren’t lies.

Richie & others IRV promoters have had their “error” explained to them for
35 years. Richie even promising to stop telling the “mid-statement”, but
then continued to do so.

Yeah, you don’t believe that without proof. I wasn’t at the meeting. Sara
Wolk was. If you want substantiation, she’s the one to ask. She’ll tell
tell you who else was there. I believe that Clay Shentrup was there. …&
Aaron, who at that time led CES.

But maybe it’s all a conspiracy, like the one where people say Trump did
things? :-)

>
Anyway IRV has violated FairVote’s promise right in front of their face,
but they keep repeating the “mis-statement”.

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:51 PM Closed Limelike Curves <
> closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael—as mentioned, the error was a minor mistake in converting the
>> vote totals to percentages, because Fargo didn’t report turnout (so it had
>> to be estimated based on votes on other ballot initiatives).
>>
>> It’s not a tabulation error, like the ones we’ve seen for IRV elections.
>> IRV races have sometimes even declared the wrong winner because of the
>> complexity of aggregating all the votes (non-summability).
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 7:47 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Turns out approval has its own counting vulnerabilities. I hope someone
>>> lets Harper’s magazine know!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:42 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information. Though some of us will write to them about
>>>> the mis-reporting, I hope that you will too, or already have. They should
>>>> definitely hear from the person who noticed it, & not just 2nd-hand.
>>>>
>>>> It’s a relief that the winners have been correctly reported.
>>>>
>>>> Again, thank you for pointing that error out.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 05:28 Evangeline Moore <
>>>> evangeline.moore at ih21.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I work at a Czech institute researching voting methods, and a while
>>>>> back I took an interest in the approval voting elections in Fargo. While I
>>>>> was running the numbers, trying to build a model for a separate project, I
>>>>> noticed that the approval vote results have never been accurately reported
>>>>> in Fargo. The winners are right, but the percentages are not. They've never
>>>>> crossed 50% approval despite being widely reported that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I posted an explanation of this on our website:
>>>>> https://www.ih21.org/aktuality/approval-voting-in-fargo When I
>>>>> realized that another election is coming up and that, as far as I can tell,
>>>>> nobody else has made the methodology publicly known yet, I wanted to get
>>>>> this out there. I also thought you guys might find it interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> EM
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see 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/20240607/464297d4/attachment-0001.htm>