[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[Michael Garman]

The QAnon idiots will cry fraud no matter what if their candidate loses.
Hell, at least one Green shill is still crying foul about FPP tabulations
from a quarter century ago! We can't let the conspiracy theorists win.

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 5:44 PM Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> I'm happy to make tweaks! I don't have all the answers, Bob. I've never
> pretended to.
>
> My issue is with the people -- many of whom are on this list -- who view
> something that fails less than 1% of the time as insufficiently preferable
> to the status quo and would encourage voters to reject it in favor of
> preserving FPP.
>
> Advocate for the best currently viable option != accept it as the best
> we'll ever have.
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 5:40 PM robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 06/08/2024 4:20 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh no…it only works 99.2% of the time! The horror!
>> >
>>
>> Could work 99.6% of the time.  Or we could revert to FPTP and it works
>> 97% of the time (i.e. in less than 3% of RCV elections, a difference occurs
>> in who is elected).  The failure rate of FPTP is not all that bad, yet
>> there is your organization, FairVote, RCVRC, dozens of state/local
>> organizations, with scores of employees committed to correcting that 3%.
>>
>> But not interested in correcting their own flaws.  So much so that they
>> lie about the performance of their own product and they lie about the
>> objective failures when they do occur.
>>
>> A bridge or some other construction that failed, unnecessarily, 0.4% of
>> the time that it is used would not be considered acceptable.  But elections
>> are less important than bridges.
>>
>> You see, Michael, when the stakes are high, even low failure rates become
>> important.  The Electoral College hasn't failed all that often, but because
>> in recent times it has failed twice, 16 years apart, that's bringing
>> attention to the systemic failure (because this failure is favoring a
>> particular side).
>>
>> As RCV is used more and more, these other failures will happen more
>> often.  Each time this failure occurs, especially when the failure is
>> unnecessary and avoidable, bad shit happens.  Like repeal efforts that get
>> on the ballot.
>>
>> So the question is, do RCV advocates learn from these glitches?  Or
>> continue to deny the failures or minimize the significance of the failure?
>>
>> You are clearly in the latter group.  You haven't learned yet that course
>> corrections early in the voyage are less costly than later in the voyage.
>> We're quite early in the voyage of RCV reform, there is solid evidence of
>> not heading in the intended direction, yet you continue to deny the
>> indication of a course correction and insist that we dig in deeper and
>> commit to exactly the same heading that has already demonstrated the need
>> for adjustment.
>>
>> The need for adjustment is multi-faceted (another thing you ignore).
>> Especially with the nut-cases challenging the legitimacy of election
>> results *along with* T**** and sycophants actually trying to simply fudge
>> the election results, any reform that causes a reversion or roll-back of
>> process transparency *hurts* the election reform movement.  Right now, with
>> FPTP, we have redundancy in tabulation and we can tell who wins *directly*
>> from the tallies posted at the source (the polling places) on the evening
>> of the election.  This is what protects us from some corrupt official
>> simply fudging the numbers and "finding, uh, 11780, uh, votes."
>>
>> Secretary of State Raffenberger was not (and is not) corrupt, but Jeffery
>> Clark (a different high official) obviously is.  We need process
>> transparency to prevent a corrupt election official from fudging the
>> numbers from the tallies.  We need decentralization and process
>> transparency to prevent the QAnon assholes from making any credible claims
>> that accurate tallies were fudged.  We lose all that with Hare RCV.  And
>> like the 0.4% of the Hare RCV that failed, this loss is unnecessary.
>>
>> But you're still in denial.
>>
>> --
>>
>> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>>
>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> ----
>> 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/20240608/3f827402/attachment.htm>