[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 20:15 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> > 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
>

Don’t be an ass.

You might want to look up the definition of the word “Lie”.

>
> 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/f6c9703d/attachment.htm>