<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public confidence!</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.<br><br></div><div>Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>"a fair number of repeals of RCV"</div><div><br></div><div>One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last year.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many others.<br><br></div><div>...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people find out that it isn't what it was sold as.</div><div><br></div><div>...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform in general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal, etc.,that's a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.</div><div><br></div><div>...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on the ballot. I hope it wins!</div><div><br></div><div>You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,</div><div>As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.<br><br></div><div>Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in electoral-reform itself. <br></div><div><br></div><div>The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that progreess.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism. There other other words for it. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording & imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div><br></div><div>Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.<br><br></div><div>STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.<br><br></div><div>But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has set electoral-reform back decades.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie. </div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"> and sowing division within the limited base of support</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie is common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35 years, by various members of the community.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new people to support our cause.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your fraud-supported "cause".<br><br></div><div>Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"> </div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been eliminated."<br><br></div><div>...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.</div><div><br></div><div>As it's written, that passage is a lie.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice” language you cite. Satisfied?</div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my second choice<br></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops !!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".<br></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That’s how it works :)</div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for their next choice." <br></div><div><br></div><div>That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.</div><div><br></div><div>To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice Voting".<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of your claim…</div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">> "
<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."</span><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops! Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.</span></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">“…hasn’t produced any evidence”?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have already seen FairVote’s promotional material.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.</span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">You might want to specify what you’re talking about.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported claim was !</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>You might wish to consider substantiating your claims instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.</div></div><div dir="ltr"><div>On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Michael Ossipoff</b> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14<br>Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations<br>To: Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>><br></div><br><br><div dir="auto">The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the electoral-reform community. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the incorrect statement.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">“The perfect is the enemy of the good”?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You evidently think fraud is good. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…intentional lying to sell a product.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress whatsoever. </div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination (STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by FairVote.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thus, RCV is a fraud.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t be supported.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be successfully sold to the people of Oregon.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that advocate for it. <br clear="all"><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Lying to sell something is called fraud.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t like that when they find out.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">My response to Michael's second paragraph below is admittedly a "rant" <br>
that's intended to reveal insights about what's going on under the <br>
surface of election-method reform in the U.S., especially in Oregon. In <br>
other words, what I've written in response to Michael's second paragraph <br>
is not directed at Michael.<br>
<br>
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:<br>
> I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the RCVRC.<br>
<br>
To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and for taking time to <br>
educate me about the lack of official collaboration between RCVRC and <br>
FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping NYC to adopt ranked <br>
choice ballots!<br>
<br>
> It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep letting the perfect be the<br>
> enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a conspiracy instead of<br>
> offering constructive criticism to the most powerful election reformers<br>
> out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck with FPTP. You have no<br>
> evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion — because it doesn’t<br>
> exist.<br>
<br>
For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group of election-method <br>
reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly pushing STAR voting, with <br>
lots of financial assistance.<br>
<br>
One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that current versions of IRV <br>
software do not allow giving the same preference level to two or more <br>
candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR ballots do allow this <br>
kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled ballots" in real IRV <br>
elections as evidence of the importance of this issue (even though an <br>
overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice ballot can be <br>
categorized as "spoiled").<br>
<br>
If the FairVote organization were more honest about the importance of <br>
being able to rank multiple candidates at the same preference level, the <br>
fans of STAR voting would not have been able to push IRV fans into <br>
becoming STAR fans.<br>
<br>
History: Interestingly the primary financial backer behind STAR voting <br>
started out as an IRV fan. I know this because about 20 years ago a <br>
friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping from the Eugene newspaper <br>
in which that person, the son of a university president there, was <br>
promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in Eugene had heard me <br>
promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what are now called "ranked <br>
choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis, but traveled to <br>
dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that some people in Eugene <br>
thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted "order-of-preference <br>
ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis, where IRV was adopted <br>
later after I moved away.<br>
<br>
My opposition is against the misinformation about so-called "overvotes."<br>
<br>
I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to push IRV through the <br>
Oregon legislature.<br>
<br>
For about two decades I've been offering constructive criticism to IRV <br>
fans and the leader of FairVote, but my suggestions are regarded as not <br>
important enough for them to seriously consider.<br>
<br>
I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about the unfair results of <br>
IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special election in Alaska.<br>
<br>
Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting the idea of adopting <br>
IRV and then, later, improving the counting software.<br>
<br>
That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by eliminating "pairwise <br>
losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well aware that this refinement <br>
will take longer to remedy compared to correctly counting overvotes.<br>
<br>
In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting criticize IRV as being <br>
vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet this effect will <br>
disappear from IRV when pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when <br>
they occur.<br>
<br>
So I find myself attacking misrepresentations -- basically "white lies" <br>
-- from both the FairVote organization and the fans of STAR voting (who <br>
loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote Coalition), both of whom are <br>
well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election Science Foundation also <br>
promotes misrepresentations.<br>
<br>
To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations. I'm attacking their <br>
misrepresentations.<br>
<br>
I realize that sometimes those organizations are trying to keep things <br>
simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of those simplifications <br>
become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.<br>
<br>
It's important to understand that the fans of STAR voting wouldn't be <br>
getting so many signatures on their current statewide petition to adopt <br>
STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and FairVote had not been so <br>
adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.<br>
<br>
And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get enough signatures on their <br>
petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene elections if they hadn't <br>
co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a "better kind of ranked <br>
choice voting"). That Eugene-specific petition-based referendum has <br>
already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024 ballot.<br>
<br>
To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting STAR voting; rather I'm <br>
opposed to STAR fans trying to block the statewide ranked choice ballot <br>
initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are doing this by pushing <br>
a separate statewide STAR petition.<br>
<br>
That's a misrepresentation because they criticize ranked choice voting <br>
as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though the already-scheduled <br>
November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of "overvotes" so that the <br>
wording is compatible with future software.<br>
<br>
FairVote's myth about overvotes not being countable has contributed to <br>
this attack against IRV.<br>
<br>
Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been promoting ranked choice <br>
ballots for three decades, although previously under the names <br>
"order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."<br>
<br>
Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the mayoral election and STV <br>
for city council elections. (In spite of opposition from a fan of STAR <br>
voting who was on the charter amendment committee.)<br>
<br>
And the Oregon state legislature has passed a ranked-choice-voting <br>
referendum that will appear statewide on the November ballot -- with no <br>
mention of the word "overvote" in the counting details, because of my <br>
influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified against this bill.)<br>
<br>
The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC, STAR fans, and the <br>
Election Science Foundation is undermining support for Portland's <br>
reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked choice ballots for electing <br>
our governor and our members of Congress.<br>
<br>
I'm not intending to suggest there is any conspiracy between the <br>
organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the donations going to <br>
these organizations would decline if they were to increase cooperation <br>
and avoid misrepresentation.<br>
<br>
I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature being the first state <br>
legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters to adopt ranked choice <br>
ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely beneficial tipping point <br>
for civilization! (Other states that have adopted ranked choice voting <br>
have had to do it by gathering signatures on petitions.)<br>
<br>
My anger is directed at the people who undermine this progress toward <br>
adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better software.<br>
<br>
That better software will correctly count mythical "overvotes."<br>
<br>
And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA (independence of <br>
irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get criticized as either <br>
Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect" failures.<br>
<br>
My request to all election-method reform organizations and individuals <br>
is to please stop the misrepresentations, at least to Oregon voters, so <br>
the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum passes with support <br>
from a majority of Oregon voters.<br>
<br>
To everyone still reading this far, thank you for reading my rant.<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
The VoteFair guy<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:<br>
> I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the RCVRC.<br>
> <br>
> It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep letting the perfect be the <br>
> enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a conspiracy instead of <br>
> offering constructive criticism to the most powerful election reformers <br>
> out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck with FPTP. You have no <br>
> evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion — because it doesn’t <br>
> exist.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy <br>
> <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank">electionmethods@votefair.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman wrote:<br>
> > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center is an independent entity<br>
> fully<br>
> > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!<br>
> <br>
> Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that the Ranked Choice Voting<br>
> Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!) affiliated with FairVote.<br>
> <br>
> Then why does RCVRC have the same misunderstanding that the leader of<br>
> the FairVote organization has been pushing for decades?<br>
> <br>
> Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC pushed onto the Portland<br>
> Oregon election officials the idea that skipping(!) "overvotes" was a<br>
> recommended option. That's worse than ignoring the remaining rankings!<br>
> <br>
> That skipping option works in Australia where a voter hand-writes a<br>
> number next to each candidate's name. (They don't have to worry about<br>
> "ballot real estate" because there is just one box for each candidate.)<br>
> But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S. where we mark ovals in<br>
> "choice" columns. And where ballot real estate is very important.<br>
> <br>
> (In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for<br>
> just a limited number of contests because election officials were<br>
> concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon ballots to require more<br>
> than one sheet of paper.)<br>
> <br>
> I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC<br>
> elections "The scanner will reject any ballot where you mark more than<br>
> one candidate for the same rank – in other words, if you fill in more<br>
> than one oval in the same column."<br>
> <br>
> Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to correctly count those marks?<br>
> (Just pair up equivalent ballots and allocate those "paired" ballots in<br>
> equal numbers to those same-ranked candidates.)<br>
> <br>
> Richard Fobes<br>
> The VoteFair guy<br>
> <br>
> ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a><br>
> <<a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a>> for list info<br>
> <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>
----<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>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></div>
----<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>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>