<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
> Are you saying that the IRV that the November referendum would enact<br>
> allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.<br>
<br>
YES<br>
<br>
> …&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?<br>
<br>
It avoids this "counting detail" by not mentioning anything about it.</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
the VoteFair guy<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
> VoteFair Guy:<br>
> <br>
> Are you saying that the IRV that the November referendum would enact <br>
> allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.<br>
> <br>
> That’s a yes or no question.<br>
> <br>
> Yes or no?<br>
> <br>
> …&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?<br>
> <br>
> Does every one of your top-ranked candidates get a point (“vote”) from <br>
> your ballot, or does each of them get a useless little fraction of a <br>
> vote divided among them? …You know, split-vote in a method that you say <br>
> doesn’t have a split-vote problem.<br>
> <br>
> An no, don’t embark on some long evasion or preface. I doubt that people <br>
> will be willing to search for your answer in a long mass of <br>
> meaning-mystery text.<br>
> <br>
> The reason I ask is, you’ve been promoting the referendum as what it <br>
> would be if were something different from what it is.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 17:41 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>
> Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR voting<br>
> promoters.<br>
> <br>
> Here's some background info for the benefit of election-method forum<br>
> readers:<br>
> <br>
> In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will vote to approve or<br>
> defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting for electing<br>
> Oregon<br>
> governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the Oregon secretary of<br>
> state). This referendum was passed by the Oregon state legislature!<br>
> This is huge! All other states that have adopted ranked choice voting<br>
> have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their<br>
> state's ballots.<br>
> <br>
> Here's the full text of the referendum:<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled</a> <<a href="https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled</a>><br>
> <br>
> The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4. Importantly<br>
> the<br>
> words do not mention anything about "overvotes." Also importantly it's<br>
> well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future. Also<br>
> it gives explicit permission to later adopt the single-transferable<br>
> vote<br>
> (STV) for electing city-council members (which Portland recently<br>
> adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.<br>
> <br>
> Note: The following "open letter" is long because election-method<br>
> reform is not a simple topic, and numerous misunderstandings are<br>
> involved.<br>
> <br>
> ........................<br>
> <br>
> Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:<br>
> <br>
> The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on<br>
> the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the<br>
> promoters of<br>
> STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.<br>
> <br>
> These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing<br>
> mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming<br>
> statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice<br>
> voting for some Oregon elections.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting promoters, have<br>
> correctly identified relevant information.<br>
> <br>
> * Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history of promoting<br>
> misrepresentations.<br>
> <br>
> * Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization was a big source of<br>
> money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed to Eugene voters.<br>
> <br>
> * Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting initiative.<br>
> <br>
> * Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for "opposition" arguments<br>
> in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene voter.<br>
> <br>
> * Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's pamphlet helped<br>
> defeat the STAR voting initiative.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> (E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet:<br>
> <a href="https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet</a> <<a href="https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet</a>> )<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are<br>
> overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR voting<br>
> was defeated.<br>
> <br>
> Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.<br>
> <br>
> * You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy, without<br>
> understanding they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)<br>
> number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are<br>
> much better than STAR ballots.<br>
> <br>
> * Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the<br>
> unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when<br>
> a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round. Yet<br>
> your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff<br>
> step, which is not what they were criticizing.<br>
> <br>
> * You seem to dismiss the important difference between your<br>
> single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the<br>
> single-transferable vote (STV). STV really does increase<br>
> representation<br>
> for minorities, women, etc. In fact STV with three seats per district<br>
> (as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66<br>
> percent of that district's voters. Yes, a single-winner method such as<br>
> STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation<br>
> guarantee from zero to 50 percent. But that does not reach the higher<br>
> level that minorities want, and deserve.<br>
> <br>
> * Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR<br>
> voting<br>
> is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter<br>
> advocates in Portland who have been learning about the<br>
> single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be used in Portland<br>
> in November to elect our city councilors.<br>
> <br>
> * Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote<br>
> splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a<br>
> lie. This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.<br>
> If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting<br>
> avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the<br>
> same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote<br>
> organization.<br>
> <br>
> * The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR voting wasted lots<br>
> of words talking about issues that are not as important as the above<br>
> issues. In my opinion these minor issues include the size of<br>
> summarized<br>
> ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the monotonicity<br>
> criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Clarification: Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends<br>
> where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and<br>
> where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted<br>
> as a<br>
> single round of ballot marking and counting. However the<br>
> strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental<br>
> elections. That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating<br>
> their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Now let's talk about possible future collaborations, and barriers to<br>
> collaboration.<br>
> <br>
> I too dislike the FairVote organization. I've been fighting against<br>
> them for three decades.<br>
> <br>
> Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the fee (about $2,000 I<br>
> believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from me,<br>
> Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November referendum,<br>
> I will gladly accept their assistance.<br>
> <br>
> Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission to use my name as<br>
> being in support of the upcoming November referendum, I will agree<br>
> -- if<br>
> the promotion does not imply blind support for the FairVote<br>
> organization<br>
> and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska elections yielded the<br>
> correct winner.<br>
> <br>
> I'm open to this collaboration because they, the FairVote organization,<br>
> and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS are needed<br>
> for<br>
> election-method reform.<br>
> <br>
> Reaching areas of agreement, and working in collaboration, is how<br>
> election-method reform is going to happen.<br>
> <br>
> This brings us to the core point in this letter.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> "Voters must be allowed to mark two or more candidates at the same<br>
> preference level."<br>
> <br>
> These are the words I spoke to the Oregon legislative "rules" committee<br>
> several years ago, back when the FairVote organization was<br>
> attempting to<br>
> push their flawed idea of how they think ranked choice ballots<br>
> should be<br>
> counted.<br>
> <br>
> Because of your testimony against that flawed FairVote bill, and<br>
> because<br>
> of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these bills later worked<br>
> with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically improved<br>
> wording that is now in the November referendum.<br>
> <br>
> The referendum wording does not contain any mention of "overvotes."<br>
> This is huge! Of course "overvote" is FairVote's terminology for<br>
> marking two or more candidates in the same choice column.<br>
> <br>
> This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take credit for<br>
> dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!<br>
> <br>
> If you want, you can think of this refinement as a concession by the<br>
> fans of the FairVote organization.<br>
> <br>
> Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is finally being exposed.<br>
> <br>
> The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have the first statewide<br>
> Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can be using software<br>
> that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."<br>
> <br>
> As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at the same preference<br>
> level, and when the counting reaches that pattern, that ballot can be<br>
> paired with another ballot that has the same equivalent pattern, and<br>
> one<br>
> of those two ballots is counted as support for one of those two<br>
> candidates, and the other ballot is counted as support for the other<br>
> candidate. (Software can simulate this counting using decimal numbers<br>
> and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must not<br>
> use the decimal-number shortcut.)<br>
> <br>
> The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical "overvotes"<br>
> is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded election<br>
> software can be tested. Writing software is easy, but getting it<br>
> certified requires certified data.<br>
> <br>
> The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum wording calls this<br>
> "overvote" issue a "counting detail."<br>
> <br>
> Why is this "counting detail" so important?<br>
> <br>
> This software refinement eliminates a valid criticism that you, STAR<br>
> voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of instant-runoff<br>
> voting.<br>
> <br>
> Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR scholarly article where<br>
> the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice ballots<br>
> to be "user unfriendly." It's a misrepresentation because it does not<br>
> apply to ranked choice voting when mythical "overvotes" are correctly<br>
> counted. (There's another related user-friendly issue I'll get to<br>
> shortly.)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> (E-M forum aside: Here's a link to that scholarly article:<br>
> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3</a><br>
> <<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3</a>> )<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Yes, your "user unfriendly" criticism does apply when voters are<br>
> told to<br>
> avoid "overvotes." Especially when a voter wants to rank a strongly<br>
> disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and there are not as<br>
> many<br>
> choice columns as candidates.<br>
> <br>
> However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted correctly, election<br>
> data<br>
> will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots. That will undermine<br>
> part of your characterization of ranked choice ballots as being "user<br>
> unfriendly."<br>
> <br>
> Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no "overvote" limitation will<br>
> allow a voter to RATE the candidates.<br>
> <br>
> Just like on a score ballot!<br>
> <br>
> This means the voters who think STAR ballots are easier to mark will be<br>
> able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it were a STAR ballot!<br>
> They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse the left-to-right<br>
> orientation difference -- and ignore the column labels -- words instead<br>
> of stars and numbers.<br>
> <br>
> STAR voting fans correctly point out that some people prefer to<br>
> think in<br>
> terms of ratings rather than rankings. (Other voters regard ratings as<br>
> more difficult to assign.)<br>
> <br>
> When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a voter<br>
> can use either a rating or ranking approach, whichever they prefer!<br>
> <br>
> To repeat, this correct counting of so-called overvotes is allowed by<br>
> the wording in November's referendum because it avoids saying anything<br>
> about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy, and you, the<br>
> promoters of STAR voting, agree. And where we disagree with the<br>
> FairVote organization.<br>
> <br>
> The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is not always the least<br>
> popular. This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and the<br>
> recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong winner.<br>
> <br>
> You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy to see in Yee<br>
> diagrams.<br>
> <br>
> You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked choice ballots are<br>
> "user<br>
> unfriendly." Specifically a close election can require some voters to<br>
> mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the fairest<br>
> ("correct") election result.<br>
> <br>
> Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user unfriendliness" will<br>
> disappear when better election software becomes available.<br>
> <br>
> The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to defend the failures in<br>
> Burlington and Alaska. This is part of why lots of people like STAR<br>
> voting, and why they regard the FairVote organization as their enemy.<br>
> <br>
> Fortunately the referendum wording is written clearly, in a way that<br>
> makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw in the future.<br>
> <br>
> I believe that adding just two sentences might be sufficient to correct<br>
> this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle issue.<br>
> <br>
> Specifically, the referendum's counting method can be changed to<br>
> implement Benham's method. Just add words such as: "If a round of<br>
> counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that candidate is elected; a<br>
> pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would win every<br>
> one-on-one<br>
> contest against every remaining candidate."<br>
> <br>
> Or, the wording can be changed to implement the Ranked Choice Including<br>
> Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method. In this case the added words<br>
> would<br>
> say something like: "Pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when<br>
> they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose<br>
> every one-on-one contest against every remaining candidate."<br>
> <br>
> The result would be an election method that overcomes the criticisms<br>
> against the version of instant-runoff voting that the FairVote<br>
> organization foolishly tries to defend.<br>
> <br>
> Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can, with the addition of<br>
> two sentences, yield all the most significant election-method<br>
> advantages<br>
> of STAR voting.<br>
> <br>
> Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not welcome this<br>
> interpretation.<br>
> <br>
> Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a<br>
> reasonably-well-designed method that significantly differs from what<br>
> the<br>
> FairVote organization originally tried to push through the Oregon<br>
> legislature.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Now I'll discuss a concern.<br>
> <br>
> I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters, might try to<br>
> sabotage<br>
> the November referendum. That might be based on your belief that the<br>
> FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this referendum is an<br>
> opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene initiative.<br>
> <br>
> Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all Oregon voters, the<br>
> majority of whom want a better election system. Remember it would hurt<br>
> Eugene voters too!<br>
> <br>
> And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had to<br>
> vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of independent<br>
> candidate<br>
> Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder. The referendum<br>
> will<br>
> solve that vote-splitting problem.<br>
> <br>
> In case it's important, I did not express opposition against the STAR<br>
> voting initiative. I remained neutral because I used to know lots of<br>
> people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a better election<br>
> system. (I agree that STAR voting is better than plurality.) In fact,<br>
> long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need to be using<br>
> "order-of-preference ballots." That was back in the mid 1990's, long<br>
> before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long before the name "ranked<br>
> choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many dances<br>
> in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived there. Getting<br>
> back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see how Eugene voters<br>
> would respond to your initiative.<br>
> <br>
> The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge number of Eugene<br>
> voters correctly recognize that ranked choice ballots, with a<br>
> well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR ballots.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the November referendum<br>
> could lead to planet-wide suicide!<br>
> <br>
> Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did all the coursework<br>
> for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at Oregon State<br>
> University.<br>
> Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National Center for<br>
> Atmospheric<br>
> Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one of their climate<br>
> models. So I have known since the 1970s that our planet is in a very<br>
> bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice coverage at the north<br>
> and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which<br>
> increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the snow<br>
> and ice melt. That understanding is part of what motivates me to<br>
> pursue<br>
> election-method reform with a sense of urgency.<br>
> <br>
> Adopting a better election system is the tipping point that will switch<br>
> governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.<br>
> <br>
> Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon after<br>
> we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon state<br>
> representatives. (That's the next step after adopting this<br>
> referendum.)<br>
> (And consider that better economic prosperity will reduce<br>
> domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is giving us this huge<br>
> opportunity to implement election-method reform that will help<br>
> civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.<br>
> <br>
> At the national level, higher levels of democracy will "uncrazify" our<br>
> crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with problem-solving<br>
> leaders. They will replace any members of Congress who persist in<br>
> being<br>
> puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.<br>
> <br>
> You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make this happen. You<br>
> pushed back against the FairVote organization's flawed version of<br>
> "their" vote-counting method so that Oregon election-method experts<br>
> could write a well-designed referendum.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of the funding to<br>
> promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of instant-runoff voting.<br>
> That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent me a clipping of the<br>
> article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting that<br>
> method. Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard<br>
> each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature. If<br>
> you should want to meet via video to ask any questions, I'm open to<br>
> that<br>
> form of communication.<br>
> <br>
> While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer I was reminded<br>
> that<br>
> Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become Oregon governor because<br>
> of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley as a<br>
> spoiler candidate). That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have been<br>
> a great governor.<br>
> <br>
> In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that, if<br>
> it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave, in<br>
> spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler candidate.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be proud of.<br>
> <br>
> * You have helped educate huge numbers of voters about the need for<br>
> better ballots.<br>
> <br>
> * You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote splitting.<br>
> <br>
> * Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark more than one<br>
> candidate at the same preference level.<br>
> <br>
> * You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie that the candidate<br>
> with the fewest transferred votes is always least popular.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Let's build on the election-method reform foundation we have been<br>
> building together throughout many years.<br>
> <br>
> I look forward to working with you, rather than against you, as we take<br>
> advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has wisely<br>
> given to us.<br>
> <br>
> We don't have time for any more misunderstandings. Glaciers are<br>
> melting<br>
> faster than elections are being improved.<br>
> <br>
> Richard Fobes<br>
> The VoteFair guy<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>