[EM] Portland specifics, and ovals for approval cutoff

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

Here are answers to questions from Chris Benham.  I'm including 
Portland-specific info to answer his Portland-specific comments/questions.

On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
 > ... one possible option would be to have
 > the approval cutoff listed as one the candidates,
 > maybe named "Approve none below".  Ballots that truncate
 > this "candidate" would be counted as
 > approving all the candidates they do rank.

Perhaps even better, this special row of ovals (above the candidate 
ovals) could be positioned between the choice columns.  Just below each 
of these special ovals would be an arrow pointing down.  The legend at 
the left (just above the first candidate name) might say "approve above, 
disapprove below."  In other words, the marked oval would indicate which 
arrow points along the transition between approved and not-approved 
candidates.

Currently, election software designers would probably claim this can't 
be done.  But as election software becomes better-designed, that better 
software could easily handle these ovals, even though they do not align 
with the other ovals.

 > This is fine by me, except that if there aren't enough "ovals" to allow
 > voters to strictly rank as many candidates as they like, this extra
 > "candidate" will  somewhat exacerbate that problem.

When certified election software is available to correctly count 
so-called "overvotes" this complication will become irrelevant.

 > Am I right is guessing these ballots are counted by some machine that
 > wouldn't be interested in any marks outside the ovals? ...

Yes, any mark that is not inside an oval is not allowed.

As a slight exception, in Oregon, if a voter marks an oval and then 
decides that oval should not be marked, the voter can put a big "X" 
centered on that oval and the legs of that mark do extend outside the oval.

(Of course the other exception is writing the name of a write-in 
candidate, which will be allowed on our ranked choice ballot.  There 
will be printed ovals for the write-in candidate.  Or maybe two 
candidates.  They haven't yet revealed the final design.)

 >...  Googling around I
 > found this interview with a couple of  "Ranked Choice Voting" for 
Oregon promoters:
 >
 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xbBHan07U

Thanks for the link to the video.  I watched it to see what voters are 
being taught.

 > The discussion isn't very technical or "neutral".

Yes, so far the info going out to Portland voters about ranked choice 
voting "details" is very basic.

 > Don't you know the
 > RCV magically elects more "people of colour", young people and women?
 > I suppose it may in practice and if that motivates people to
 > vote for it that is a good thing.

Any better vote-counting method will increase representation for people 
who are not old, or white, or male.  That's because plurality/FPTP is 
exploited to elect old white males.  Why?  Because they control the 
biggest amounts of money, and it's easy to use money to exploit 
plurality/FPTP elections.

Here's context for why the TV news discussion included comments about 
black representation:  The protests in downtown Portland started out as 
anti-Trump protests, just after he was elected.  Aside: That's why in 
the presidential debate a few days ago Trump mentioned Portland as a 
hellhole (or whatever).  Getting back to the protests, someone, probably 
Steve Bannon, recruited MAGA folks from other states to move to 
Vancouver (Washington) and shuttles were provided to shuttle those 
weapon-carrying protestors across the Columbia river into downtown 
Portland.  (FYI, rent is cheaper in Vancouver.)  Then months later the 
protests shifted to protests against police brutality against black 
people because of that pattern in Portland during the protests, and in 
response to police officers killing black people in other states.  That 
led to lots of "black lives matter" signs throughout Portland.  That's 
why the Portland media makes a point of bringing up racial 
discrimination in Portland politics.

Fun facts:  When one of the two white male Portland city-council members 
tried to sabotage the STV part of ranked choice voting for electing 
city-council members, he claimed our current election system already 
favors minorities.  As part of his justification he counted the other 
two city-council members as non-white, which they are.  But he failed to 
consider that only one of the four councilors is female, even though 
female voters are not a minority!  Context: She is Latina.  Shortly 
after the meeting I sent him a message to point out his counting 
oversight, along with why we need STV.  I don't know how much my message 
to him affected his decision, but a couple of hours later he abandoned 
his sabotage attempt (part of which was supported by the other 
white/male councilor).  Also he got mild pushback from a an RCV election 
"expert" during the meeting.  I presume the women from the League of 
Women Voters sitting in a group at the back of the council chambers (but 
not allowed to speak) also helped.  Not to mention other likely messages 
he probably got.  I did get a reply from his admin/assistant that my 
message was being forwarded to his "policy advisors."  (Probably the 
people who crafted his misleading claims.)  It was the closest I've seen 
to a local politician saying "oops" regarding election-method reform.

Again, thanks for your questions, and for answering my questions.

Richard Fobes


On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
> 
>> On 6/23/2024 8:34 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>> >/Double Defeat,Hare means you form a candidate ranking using the IRV 
>> elimination order and then you elect the first (i.e. best, 
>> last-eliminated) candidate in the ranking who is permissible under 
>> Chris Benham's Double Defeat criterion. The criterion says you can't 
>> be elected if you have less approval than a candidate who pairwise 
>> defeats you. /
>> So the "Double Defeat,Hare" method requires that each voter indicate an
>> approval cutoff within their ranked choice ballot?
>>
>> So we cannot use the Double Defeat,Hare method on the Burlington
>> election data, right?
>>
>> How would the Approval cutoff be indicated on a ranked choice ballot on
>> which the voter marks ovals in "choice" columns?  I'm asking because
>> that's the only kind of ballot used here in Oregon, where everyone votes
>> at home.
> 
> Richard,
> 
> The answer to your first two questions is yes, but maybe in the case of 
> the Burlington election data we can make reasonable or plausible 
> speculations about where the voters might have put their approval cutoffs.
> 
> In answer to your last question, one possible option would be to have 
> the approval cutoff listed as one the candidates, maybe named "Approve 
> none below".  Ballots that truncate this "candidate" would be counted as 
> approving all the candidates they do rank.
> 
> This is fine by me, except that if there aren't enough "ovals" to allow 
> voters to strictly rank as many candidates as they like, this extra 
> "candidate" will  somewhat exacerbate that problem.
> 
> Am I right is guessing these ballots are counted by some machine that 
> wouldn't be interested in any marks outside the ovals? Googling around I 
> found this interview with a couple of  "Ranked Choice Voting" for Oregon 
> promoters:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xbBHan07U
> 
> The discussion isn't very technical or "neutral".  Don't you know the 
> RCV magically elects more "people of colour", young people and women?   
> I suppose it may in practice and if that motivates people to vote for it 
> that is a good thing.
> 
> Chris B.
> 
> 
> 
>