[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Closed Limelike Curves]

I mostly disagree with Ossipoff’s argument, but I think there’s a strong
core to it that’s correct: if the properties of a system are consistently
misrepresented, the misconceptions that creates can create problems big
enough to outweigh any potential benefits of IRV.

To give a good example of this, the way FairVote consistently repeated the
idea that you’d never have to vote for a lesser evil in IRV caused some big
problems in Alaska’s special election. There, Palin supporters could’ve
salvaged the election by voting strategically for Begich or convincing
Palin to drop out; but (in part) because FairVote frequently lies about it
being safe to vote for your favorite in IRV, they didn't.

Clearly some people being wrong shouldn't disqualify a voting system, but
if the misinformation is pervasive and consistent enough it can become a
major issue for a voting method.

For me personally, the thing that's soured me on IRV, even as an FPP
replacement, is the way FairVote has promoted it as a radical
transformation to the political process. This means
A) people who see IRV fail mistakenly conclude this means electoral reform
doesn't work
B) people distrust the method as "new", which damages faith in elections.

I think if it weren't for the way it's been sold, I would just barely lean
towards IRV being better than FPP, instead of the other way around.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:47 PM Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> 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/b812de86/attachment.htm>