[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Michael Garman]

> It was an error. There weren’t lies.

Incorrect results were promoted as correct. That’s called lying. And, by
your logic, it makes the promotion of the system fraudulent and it should
be automatically rejected. Oops! :D

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:12 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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/fe908885/attachment.htm>