[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 06/08/2024 5:46 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

But you give them ammunition when you refuse to allow process transparency that we already have with FPTP.

If you don't want to let the conspiracy theorists win, you must not choose to help them.  You must not give them anything that they can stand on.

Loss of process transparency is a real thing that you are allowing the conspiracy theorists use to oppose RCV reform.

> On 06/08/2024 5:44 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm happy to make tweaks!

Your organization is not.

> I don't have all the answers, Bob. I've never pretended to.
> 

Your organization does pretend to.  And sometimes they're wrong.  And even sometimes, they are dishonest with the facts.  Normally we call such dishonesty "lies".

> 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

It is.  And that's because it can be corrected, but the promoters of the "something" refuse to be honest about both the failure, the significance of the failure, the wrong-headed thinking regarding the failure, and that the failure can be corrected up to what we all know about the limits identified early on by Condorcet and, in modern times, by Arrow et. al.

> and would encourage voters to reject it in favor of preserving FPP.
> 

Well, you didn't get the bridge analogy.  The problem is when RCV fails to do **exactly** the beneficial goal that we tout RCV to do, the opponents latch onto that and have a *real* complaint that they can harp about.  We mustn't give them such an easy example they can use a reason for opposition.

When close elections are contested (even not-so-close elections) and opponents point to opacity and question if, behind the opacity, the numbers were nefariously changed, we mustn't give them such an easy example that they can used as a reason for opposition.

You probably know that it's really hard to reform election methods.  Lots'a resistance.  Reforming FPTP to Hare RCV, touting it as the best thing since sliced bread, then watching it fail on a few occasions, then *denying* the facts of that failure, sets the movement back.  That's what you refuse to understand.

> Advocate for the best currently viable option != accept it as the best we'll ever have.
> 

Actually, your colleagues in your organization do not agree, nor do they give a shit.

You can't credibly make this claim that you just did above while, at the same time, you're trying to entrench the "currently viable option".  We know this because your organization will never admit that the "currently viable option" has any flaws and certainly none that can be corrected.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.
--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.