<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpdef2e9b4yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Richard, quite a few of your "misrepresentations" are simply cases where you disagree. I think Greg Dennis has already addressed a couple of them but things like "<span><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections</span></span>" and <span><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">"Approval voting would be suitable for general elections" should not be included in your list.</span></span></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></span></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Toby</span></span></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpa08d8602yahoo_quoted_3918102734" class="ydpa08d8602yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Monday, 18 December 2023 at 18:37:02 GMT, Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr">Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the <br clear="none">FairVote organization are:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least <br clear="none">popular candidate<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods <br clear="none">are not worth considering<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by <br clear="none">the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center <br clear="none">(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it <br clear="none">difficult to change to anything better)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior <br clear="none">elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to <br clear="none">write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts <br clear="none">that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked at)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one <br clear="none">of them.)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR <br clear="none">voting are (off the top of my head):<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which <br clear="none">is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked <br clear="none">choice ballots)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice <br clear="none">ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible <br clear="none">alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination <br clear="none">(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar <br clear="none">candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates <br clear="none">and bottom-rank all other candidates)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast <br clear="none">fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other <br clear="none">failures (including Condorcet failures)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second <br clear="none">step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Approval voting would be suitable for general elections<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method <br clear="none">that uses ranked choice ballots<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by <br clear="none">presenting IRV as if it were the only option)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">(I might be forgetting one or two more.)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state) <br clear="none">about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method <br clear="none">should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be <br clear="none">considered by the voters or elected officials<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="ydpa08d8602yqt3590540816" id="ydpa08d8602yqtfd60975"><br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>