[EM] Fwd: Fwd: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 236, Issue 18

Wed Mar 20 01:43:06 PDT 2024

Here we have another fine example of why Michael Ossipoff should be binned.
There’s nothing productive or constructive about reflexively calling people
who disagree as “cult” members.

Progress in the “wrong direction?” Oh come on. You can’t possibly tell me
IRV is worse than FPTP, even if it’s far from your ideal.

How many states have adopted other alternative methods? That would be zero.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 236, Issue 18
To: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 23:27 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> Michael, I’m a student.
>

Then do more study & less assertion.

No one is wining and dining me. I’m a pragmatist — you’ve got your head in
> the clouds.
>

What, because I don’t agree that “progress” is more important than
principle. You can keep your unprincipled “progress”.  Your “ progress” is
in the wrong direction.

An intrinsically-questionable method, combined with with dishonest
promotion, making it unlikely for enacting-voters to know what they’re
getting.

You’re an obedient cult-follower.

…criticizing me because I don’t march with you.

“We should all get in line behind Richie because he’s succeeding.”

…if you call 2 states in 35 years “success”.

Approval:

Simple, absolutely minimal, uniquely completely unarbitrary, implementable
at zero cost, transparent & easily audited against count-fraud. Approval
would be more succeedable.

 Only very recently did an Approval-enactment project start.

>
But it’s absurd for you to claim that an email list of people who sit
> around discussing contrived ideas that will never see the light of day is
> the true “electoral-reform community”
>

You haven’t a clue what EM is. Yes, like any Internet forum, it attracts
all sorts of bullshit.

…like newcomers who arrived in full Dunning-Kruger regalia, convinced that
they know better than all the rest of us (including IRV cult-followers).

…yes there are many who only discuss interminably at the forum, & never
offer anything to the public.

To claim that that describes all of us is ignorant, bigoted & asinine.

…not quite sure what a “contrived idea” is, or what an uncontrived idea
would consist of.

Yes, do we have your permission to discuss ideas? :-)

It might be better if you tried some honest unbigoted discussion before you
start marching with a cult.

Sufficient discussion of what to do, before starting, quick-&-sloppy, to
start doing something.

So yes we propose & discuss ideas at EM.

A few times I’ve made proposals there, introducting a method or class of
methods or proposing a useful criterion.  Several times my proposals were
favorably-announced in academic journal-papers.

They did “see the light of day”.

The class of methods that I introduced was immediately recognized for its
strategic-advantages, one of which is described by a criterion that I
wrote, & is represented by the Schulze method, widely used by
organizations, companies & societies.

Some of my criteria are in wide use, including in widely-published sources.

rather than the activists who are actually making change.
>

I didn’t say that no activists are part of the electoral reform community.
Those at CES & EqualVote are. They’re in communication with the overall
rest of the electoral-reform community.

…unlike the IRV cult, which is completely out of communication with,
completely at odds with, thoroughly disrespected & abhorrent to that
community.

What, exactly, have you done to move the needle in the real world? I’m
> willing to bet it’s close to nothing.
>

See above. Marching with a cult isn’t the only way to contribute.

Additionally I’ve been in communication with the public about the
inadequacy of Vote-For-1, & proposing the best alternatives to it.

In fact I’d be sending proposals to government deliberative-bodies right
now, if I weren’t wasting my time talking to you.

Proposing to those bodies, is the preliminary step before it’s necessary to
stay an initiative.

I don’t any more have time for an individual conversation with you.

If you have anything further to say, then say it at EM (unless you you’re
afraid that you can’t support it there).

If you email me singly, individually, again, I’ll block your email.

>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 7:22 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 23:00 Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>> Where’s your evidence of “fraud”, Mike? You don’t have it!
>>>
>>
>> We’ve discussed that. We’ve been all over it.
>>
>> Read FairVote’s promotional-material.
>>
>> IRVists have used an astoundingly acrobatic interpretation of what the
>> text meant, to try to exonerate it.
>>
>> My impression is that FairVote & its “RCV” promotion are a bizarre
>> caricature of electoral-reform.
>>
>> That’s how it looks to the actual single-winner-reform community. …& to
>> the electoral-reform community in general.
>>
>> I gave you enough benefit of the doubt to send a long,
>> detailedly-explanatory email…a few messages back.
>>
>> Evidently I was wasting my time, because instead of saying what you think
>> is wrong with my statements or conclusions, you’re just continuing exactly
>> the same repetition.
>>
>> I suggest that it would be better to listen to the electoral-reform
>> community. Just maybe they might be right, even though they haven’t been
>> able to spend as heavily.
>>
>> I don’t understand your unquestioning loyalty to FairVote.  It goes
>> beyond the usual. That’s why I’ve used the word “cult”. That’s really the
>> term that suggests itself.
>>
>> Richie used to tell in his newsletter, that he was jetting around the
>> country wining & dining key people. Maybe wining & dining buys a lot of
>> loyalty.
>>
>> I’m just trying to guess where all that unquestioning loyalty comes from.
>>
>>  (I was an early member of his organization abu35 years ago, until I
>> found out that members had no say, & their only function was to pay dues.)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 1:15 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 14:35 Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You still have yet to produce a scrap of evidence for your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You’re welcome to that belief.The Founding-Fathers fought for your
>>>> right to express it !!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you let principle get in the way of progress, your principle isn’t
>>>>> worth very much.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Principle that supports dishonesty, lying & fraud isn’t worth much.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:34 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s about dishonesty. We’ve discussed the false claims. Intentional
>>>>>> falsehood is called lying. Lying to sell a product is called fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s such a thing as principle. We’re working on electoral reform
>>>>>> for principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Principle doesn’t condone dishonesty, lying & fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t dislike Hare, but I won’t support dishonesty, lying & fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 14:28 Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t dislike approval, but I’m not pigheaded enough to
>>>>>>> relentlessly tear down the only reform with actual momentum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the issue is that candidates are encouraging their supporters to
>>>>>>> bullet vote instead of voting for similar candidates whom they likely also
>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:18 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There’s nothing wrong with approving only one candidate, if you
>>>>>>>> only like one. Jill, Joe & Donald? Hell yes I’d bullet-vote for Jill.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When there are completely unacceptable candidates, Approval
>>>>>>>> strategy is particularly simple:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approve all the Acceptables, & never approve an Unacceptable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The beauty of Approval is the *option* of approving as many as you
>>>>>>>> want to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like Hare’s refusal to elect an unfavorite middle CW. No, Hare
>>>>>>>> doesn’t really always elect the favorite of a majority, but it elects the
>>>>>>>> favorite of the largest faction of the mutual majority when there is one.
>>>>>>>> …& that counts as a good thing, & a liked winner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> …&, due to elimination of least favorite, transfers, & election of
>>>>>>>> hir who tops most of the ballots, Hare always elects the favorite of the
>>>>>>>> largest faction of a majority, even if there isn’t a mutual-majority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Hill is right about Hare’s advantage of not electing an
>>>>>>>> unfavorite middle compromise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hare is my favorite for parlor-elections, for a pizza-topping,
>>>>>>>> movie, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Public political elections? Problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Election of the CW, even if unfavorite, is necessary to avoid
>>>>>>>> serious strategy-problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With Hare, I’d rank the Acceeptables in order of winnability,
>>>>>>>> instead of preference or merit, in a desperate attempt to try to avoid
>>>>>>>> election of an Unacceptable if the CW is eliminated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I’d be glad to do so, to have Hare instead of  Vote-For-1 (VF1).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problem: Lesser-evil giveaway-suckers would do the same, except
>>>>>>>> that they think Joe is acceptable. No good. We’d be right back to VF1’s
>>>>>>>> lesser-of-2-evils problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The good news: A progressive majority that would enact
>>>>>>>> rank-balloting, & if they did, they didn’t do so because they want or
>>>>>>>> intend to bury their favorite under a lesser-evil. The did so because they
>>>>>>>> DON’T want to. So the above-described lesser-evil problem might well not
>>>>>>>> materialize.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially if the voters know exactly what they’re getting when
>>>>>>>> they enact Hare, & what it will do…& accept & like what it will do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bad new: That’s impossible due to FairVote’s dishonest
>>>>>>>> promotion of Hare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hare itself isn’t the problem. FairVote is Hare’s worst problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> …& there’s another problem too:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing that I like about Hare is that, when it eliminates the
>>>>>>>> CW, it sends the win in the direction chosen by the median-voters…who are
>>>>>>>> progressive. So it sends the win in the progressive direction, electing
>>>>>>>> someone even more progressive. What’s not to like about that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there might be several candidates progressive or posing as
>>>>>>>> progressive. So, when the solidly broadly supported CW is eliminated, &
>>>>>>>> then shallow flippant plurality-favoriteness chooses the winner, Hare can
>>>>>>>> do something silly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has happened in a Hare poll. Hare did a Silly.  …& it points
>>>>>>>> out another way that Hare can do funny.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, for choosing pizza-topping, movie, etc, I love Hare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electing the CW eliminates strategy problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Condorcet elects the sincere CW when there is one, unless offensive
>>>>>>>> strategy like burial is used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good news: wv Condorcet strongly deters burial. ..because they meet
>>>>>>>> Minimal-Defense, & also because they’re strongly autodeterent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even without any defense strategy burial is 20 times more likely to
>>>>>>>> backfire than succeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People criticize Approval because we don’t know the
>>>>>>>> objectively-optimal vote. We might not know if we should approve our
>>>>>>>> 2nd-choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what. Neither do the other voters, so don’t worry about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There’s such a thing as subjective probability & subjective
>>>>>>>> expectation. …based on the information you have & use. It’s genuine
>>>>>>>> probability & expectation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take a card out of a deck, look at it, but don’t show it to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For you the probability that the top card is the ace of spades is
>>>>>>>> 1/52 (no jokers in the deck). For me that probability is either zero or
>>>>>>>> 1/51.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We’re both right. Subjective probability is genuine probability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approve all whom you like, & you maximize the (subjective but
>>>>>>>> genuine) probability of electing someone you like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approve all whom you’d appoint instead of having the election & who
>>>>>>>> are therefore above expectation. That raises your expectation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or, worded differently, approve all who’d please you if they won.
>>>>>>>> Or refuse to approve the ones who’d disappoint you if they won.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because I regard some candidates as unacceptable, Approval strategy
>>>>>>>> (as I mentioned) is simple: Approve (only) all of the Acceptables.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approval is the absolutely minimal method allowing multicandidate
>>>>>>>> merit expression…& therefore the unique completely unarbitrary method.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approval is uniquely easy to define, explain, propose, enact,
>>>>>>>> implement (can be implemented at zero cost), administer & security-audit
>>>>>>>> for error & count-fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don’t underestimate the big importance of preventing count-fraud as
>>>>>>>> reliably as possible…maximally achievable with Approval.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:59 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, and if approval is so perfect , why does only one city use it
>>>>>>>>> for its general elections — in which nearly every candidate urges their
>>>>>>>>> supporters to bullet vote?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 8:57 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FairVote has two states, and likely two more plus DC, after this
>>>>>>>>>> year, as well as over fifty cities. Legislative efforts are also making
>>>>>>>>>> serious headway in Virginia, Vermont, Rhode Island and elsewhere. You’re
>>>>>>>>>> making conspiratorial claims you can’t back up and speculating about a
>>>>>>>>>> contrived counterfactual you can’t support with evidence because you’d
>>>>>>>>>> rather complain about not getting exactly what you want than work with a
>>>>>>>>>> coalition that is making significant change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 8:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote’s money has distorted & corrupted electoral reform.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It has been a matter of promoting what George Halley was
>>>>>>>>>>> promoting in the’20s, chosen for no reason other than because Hallett was
>>>>>>>>>>> promoting it. It was never about merit. It was about traditional pride.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After 35 years, FairVote has nothing to show for it other than
>>>>>>>>>>> two states & some cities. With that heavy funding, Approval would be in
>>>>>>>>>>> universal use by now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> …but, as I said, it was never about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:44 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s money and growing political power behind an electoral
>>>>>>>>>>>> reform. Take it or leave it. I suggest you avoid letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> enemy of the good, unless you’re happy to stick with FPTP indefinitely. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> live in the real world.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:55 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 15:29 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never suggested IRV is perfect, but in the real world the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is IRV or FPTP in most cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> …only because that’s what FairVote has been pushing with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> humongous money.  …jetting around the country & wining & dining key people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 35 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just less than perfect. Problem-ridden, not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to RP(wv)’s merit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s a clear right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:27 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want rank-balloting, I recommend Ranked-Pairs(wv) for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-prestige, or, for even briefer definition, MinMax(wv).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes sometimes the CW is un-favorite. But the strategic price
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of not electing the stable solidly & broadly supported CW is too high.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I urge IRVists to listen to the single-winner reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 15:08 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burlington hated it so much they…reversed the repeal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alaska’s effort is funded by a group that set up a fake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> church to promote their cause. Hardly the case I’d use to make a case about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honesty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I criticize only FairVote’s dishonesty. I’ve asked them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose honesty, but no such luck.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote is Hare’s worst problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes Approval leaves the choices to the voters instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it all for you like a ranked automatic-machine…& all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disadvantages that come with those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But “RCV” is strategy-problem-ridden. Just ask the people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if Burlington & Alaska. There’s a big repeal-movement against “RCV”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Elaborate complicated un-transparent count, & still big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy-problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 14:55 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s a reason approval hasn’t caught on anywhere,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike. The two cities that have used it have hardly been ringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> endorsements. Fargo and St. Louis have seen far more gamesmanship than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere using RCV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you have a personal vendetta against FairVote, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standing in the way of the leading electoral reform organization will only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause harm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:52 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 35 years of promotion of a ranked-method & heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spending, what does FairVote have to show for it? Two states & some cities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That isn’t success, for 35 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they’d been instead offering Approval there’d likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a lot more success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …& don’t forget that Condorcet, too, has a very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computationally-intensive & computationally-demanding count, with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequent loss of transparency, & difficulty of security-auditing for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count-fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 14:23 robert bristow-johnson <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 03/16/2024 4:45 PM EDT Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:52 robert bristow-johnson <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 6:14 PM Michael Ossipoff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  > > Reply continued:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  > > Anyone who votes other than all-or-nothing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a public political election is using poor strategy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >  But requiring voters to use **any** strategy at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all is IMO just undesirable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Wouldn’t it be nice to have a ranked-method do it all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't expect any ranked method to always run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawlessly.  I know about the possibility (and even history) of cycles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I understand, when there is a preference cycle, no matter what method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is used (including FPTP), there is a spoiler.  Can't be avoided.  I just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to avoid spoiled elections when possible.  That means only Condorcet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I listed a lot of important unique Approval
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages that are lost by the complicated automatic-machines that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called “ranked-methods”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we (in Burlington) had IRV in 2009, the only money
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spent was on voter education.  We used exactly the same AccuVote machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that **only** recorded the markings.  Then there was software, ChoicePlus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro, from Voting Solution that was, I believe, public domain, that was used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to open the files of marked ballots from the memory chip from each voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, combine into a single file, and then do the IRV procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have, just as RCV has returned to Burlington,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgraded to new Dominion machines and software, and they had an extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge for RCV support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Compared to those important advantages, the matter of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voters’ qualification to use Approval well are the least of our concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Even the best ranked-method won’t help if it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get enacted because it doesn’t have Approval’s simplicity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV doesn't get enacted because Approval may appear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpler.  RCV doesn't get enacted because traditionalists don't want any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, Republicans believe it's skewed in favor of the Left (IRV doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lean Left or Right, but it *does* lean away from the Center), and then when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there *is* a Condorcet failure.  Both Alaska and Burlington started up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeal efforts nearly immediately after the IRV Condorcet failure.  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe RCV will be repealed in Alaska in November (they had nearly twice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary signatures to put the repeal question on the ballot) and IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was repealed the following year in Burlington (although we brought it back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2022).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > absolute minimalness, unique unarbitrariness, &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely cost-free implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > …or if its results are easily falsified by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count-fraud that’s difficult to detect due to an elaborate complex count.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I call this the diminished transparency in the tally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process due to losing Precinct Summability.  I think this is one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVotes most egregious oversights, especially as the scope of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increases to statewide elections.  The lost of Precinct Summability isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much of a problem in just the city of Burlington, although we ***do***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opaquely haul the Dominion voting machines (that are sealed) from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> polling places to City Hall and, other than the counts of first-choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is useful) and counts of second and third-choice marks (which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useless), the voting data is opaquely hidden as we transport the machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and sealed ballot bags.  So, unless there is an outright majority winner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that we can determine from the first-choice vote counts), then we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know who wins from the data posted at the polling places.  We have to wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the authority at the monolithic central tabulation location comes out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and announces who wins.  No outside party (like competing campaigns or news
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reporters) can double check the vote tallies.  That's opaque.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/20240320/0e1606c1/attachment-0001.htm>