[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Michael Garman]

Inaccurate promotion of an election method is automatically disqualifying,
at least according to Ossipoff’s past comments on here. Perhaps he’s now
realizing the absurdity of his claims.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:43 PM Closed Limelike Curves <
closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you mean “the system” of peer review (for missing this), well, you’re
> not wrong; but the voting system doesn’t have much to do with the clarity
> of the North Dakota State Department’s documentation.
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:33 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> The results were still reported incorrectly. That doesn’t inspire
>> confidence in the system!
>>
>> And you keep repeating your delusional conspiracy theories about 2000 and
>> 2004. By your own standards, that’s bigoted assertion, not discussion.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:26 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For one thing the errors didn’t wrongly report winners. The correct
>>> winners were elected.
>>>
>>> Unlike some errors in which IRV elected the wrong people.
>>>
>>> …not quite the same thing :-)
>>>
>>> Count-fraud wouldn’t be worth the trouble if it didn’t do that too.
>>>
>>> The mountain of evidence reported by Harpers would be unlikely to be
>>> accidental error :-)
>>>
>>> Especially given that a voting-machine supplier promised to “deliver”
>>> the election to G.W. Bush.
>>>
>>> For details or substantiation I refer you to the Harpers articles after
>>> G. W. Bush’s two elections, in 2000 & 2004.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 19:46 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/ff1c7378/attachment-0001.htm>