[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Michael Garman]

Should I care what you think about anything? Considering you repeat the
same bigoted assertions — to use your term — ad nauseam, I’m inclined not
to.

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:32 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 20:32 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
> wrote:
>
>> The results were still reported incorrectly. That doesn’t inspire
>> confidence in the system!
>>
>
> Should I care what you hav confidence in?
>
> If you don’t have confidence in counting approvals, when the only errors
> didn’t include any wrong winners, then I don’t blame you for especially
> having no confidence in IRV, whose much longer & more elaborate count was
> bungled badly enough to elect the wrong winners.
>
> I won’t keep replying to Michael G. on this conversation forever.
>
> Surely his need to be blocked is obvious.
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240608/14a0d20d/attachment-0001.htm>