<div dir="auto">The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center is an independent entity fully unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!<br clear="all"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span>On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 8:35 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:</span><br></p></div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">On 12/16/2023 6:12 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:<br>
> On 2023-12-16 13:44, C.Benham wrote:<br>
>> Why do at least several US Americans here think there is something<br>
>> problematic and/or weird about allowing both quite<br>
>> a large number of candidates on the ballot and voters to strictly rank<br>
>> exactly as many of them as they wish?<br>
><br>
> I guess it's partly that some US locations do this de facto anyway (e.g.<br>
> some places using IRV only lets the voters rank three candidates). And I<br>
> *think* that's due to legacy hardware? Optical scan machines that can<br>
> only read bubbles, and mechanical ones that can only read a certain<br>
> number of holes.<br>
<br>
One reason for limiting ranking to just 3 "choice" levels is the issue <br>
of "ballot real estate." Specifically, more choice levels take up more <br>
ballot space. That's a big issue in U.S. elections where there are so <br>
many election contests.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, when there are more than 3 candidates, the number of choice <br>
columns interacts with the issue of "overvotes."<br>
<br>
It's the FairVote organization that promotes the myth that IRV cannot <br>
handle "overvotes."<br>
<br>
Apparently FairVote does this to allow using old data from Australian <br>
elections to certify new or revised IRV software.<br>
<br>
Australia previously, before machine counting of ballots became <br>
available, counted their ranked-choice paper ballots manually, by <br>
stacking ballots in piles. (That's what I've read.)<br>
<br>
To speed up that manual counting, apparently Australia adopted the <br>
shortcut of stacking ballots according to which candidate is highest <br>
ranked after removing eliminated candidates.<br>
<br>
That shortcut means that during each counting round only a single stack <br>
of ballots needs to be looked at, and sorted, based on which candidate <br>
has become the newly highest-ranked candidate (after the latest <br>
elimination).<br>
<br>
An important part of this shortcut is to reject/dismiss/ignore any <br>
ballot when there is no longer just one highest-ranked candidate. <br>
That's probably when the term "overvote" appeared.<br>
<br>
In turn, this is why FairVote promotes the myth that when there are only <br>
three "choice" columns each choice column can have only one mark.<br>
<br>
If there are only three choice columns and a voter wants to indicate <br>
that one particular candidate is worse than all other candidates, and <br>
there are 5 or more candidates, all but the most-disliked candidate need <br>
to be ranked at choice levels "first," "second," and "third."<br>
<br>
Now that election officials in the United States and Australia count <br>
paper ballots using machines that read ballots, it's time to at least <br>
question this legacy limitation of not allowing "overvotes." And <br>
hopefully we can soon abandon this legacy limitation.<br>
<br>
For clarification, in Australia a voter writes a number inside a box <br>
located next to each candidate's name. Software can recognize those <br>
handwritten numbers as reliably as a person, yet much faster. When <br>
there is uncertainty a photographic image of the ballot can be displayed <br>
on multiple computer screens for verification from several humans.<br>
<br>
This limitation of not ranking more than one candidate at the same <br>
choice level is due to a lack of ballot data (including results) against <br>
which new software can be verified.<br>
<br>
It's time to end this ridiculous limitation.<br>
<br>
Part of my frustration comes from the fact that Portland Oregon recently <br>
adopted counting rules that are even worse than just ignoring ballots <br>
with "overvotes."<br>
<br>
With "advice" from the FairVote-controlled "Ranked Choice Voting <br>
Resource Center" the Portland election officials chose to skip over <br>
overvotes instead of dismissing the remainder of the ballot.<br>
<br>
This means a voter who ranks candidates A and B as their "second choice" <br>
and candidate C as their "third choice" will get their ballot counted as <br>
support for candidate C even if candidates A and B have not been <br>
eliminated. Yet ranking candidate C higher than A and B is exactly the <br>
opposite(!) of what the voter clearly intended!<br>
<br>
As a reminder there is a simple way to correctly count such "overvotes." <br>
Just pair up the ballot with equivalent similar ballots during that <br>
counting round. Specifically, if two ballots rank candidates A and B as <br>
equally preferred, one of those ballots goes to support candidate A and <br>
the other ballot goes to support candidate B (during this counting round).<br>
<br>
Now that we have machines and software to handle the correct counting of <br>
"overvotes," this extra "effort" does not impose any significant delay, <br>
or any significant increase in electricity to power the computer for a <br>
few extra milliseconds. It does require extra effort from the <br>
programmer who writes the code, but that just involves extra effort from <br>
one person for a few hours. (And if they don't know how to write that <br>
code they can copy from open-source software that correctly does this <br>
counting.)<br>
<br>
To repeat, the only reason for the legacy of dismissing "overvotes" is <br>
that we lack certified ballot data against which to certify upgraded <br>
software.<br>
<br>
Allowing overvotes will make it possible to meaningfully rank more than <br>
6 candidates using only 5 or 6 choice columns.<br>
<br>
(A complication is whether an unranked candidate is ranked at the bottom <br>
printed choice level, or lower than all ranked candidates. And this <br>
interacts with the complication of how to rank a candidate who is a <br>
write-in candidate on someone else's ballot.)<br>
<br>
Limiting ranked choice ballots to 6 choice columns is reasonable, even <br>
when the election contest has 10 or more candidates. But doing so does <br>
require correctly counting 2 or more candidates at the same "choice" level.<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
The VoteFair guy<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/16/2023 6:12 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:<br>
> On 2023-12-16 13:44, C.Benham wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Why do at least several US Americans here think there is something <br>
>> problematic and/or weird about allowing both quite<br>
>> a large number of candidates on the ballot and voters to strictly rank <br>
>> exactly as many of them as they wish?<br>
>><br>
> <br>
> I guess it's partly that some US locations do this de facto anyway (e.g. <br>
> some places using IRV only lets the voters rank three candidates). And I <br>
> *think* that's due to legacy hardware? Optical scan machines that can <br>
> only read bubbles, and mechanical ones that can only read a certain <br>
> number of holes.<br>
> <br>
> I'm not sure, though.<br>
> <br>
>> I prefer Smith//Condorcet, but accept that that is more complex to <br>
>> explain and sell and probably the most approved candidate<br>
>> will nearly always be in the voted Smith set.<br>
> <br>
> Do you mean Smith//Approval?<br>
> <br>
> -km<br>
> ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div></div>