<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 01:18 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div dir="auto">
<p>Mike,<br>
<br>
</p><blockquote type="cite">In fact, some of us suggested to Richie
allowing equal-ranking, each vote counted whole, & he
immediately refused it.</blockquote>
<br>
And he was very correct to do so, because the resulting ER-IRV
(whole) method is garbage.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe. Probably. …but it was suggested because it’s better garbage than ordinary IRV.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I wouldn’t advocate garbage, but I suggested that garbage to Richie because it’s a “Lesser-Of-2-Garbages”.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">At least it avoids IRV’s worst.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">[I don’t have any comments farther down in the text. It’s easier to say that than to delete the unreplied text.]</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Unlike proper Hare/STV ("normal IRV") it fails Mutual Dominant
Third. From a May 2014 EM post of mine:<br>
<br>
The example I give below is also an example of failure of
Unburiable Mutual Dominant Third.<br>
<br>
"I'd like to suggest a simplified and generalized version of that,
"Strategically Invulnerable Mutual Third" (SIMT):<br>
<br>
*If a set S of candidates are all voted above all non-S candidates
on more than a third of the ballots, and if all the S<br>
candidates pairwise-beat some non-S candidate X, then X can't
win.*<br>
<br>
This implies compliance with MDT, and means that a sincere MDT
winner is invulnerable to any sort of "offensive" strategy.<br>
<br>
ER-IRV(whole) fails Mutual Dominant Third (MDT).<br>
<br>
05 A=C<br>
31 A>B<br>
34 B>A<br>
30 C>B<br>
<br>
B is voted above all others on more than a third of the ballots
and B is the CW, but ER-IRV(whole), aka AIRV, elects A."<br>
<br>
Then there is the question of whether or not the new method has a
majority stopping rule or not. In normal Hare it can't make any
difference, but in the ER(whole) version it does.<br>
<br>
Without it the method is farcically vulnerable to Push-over
strategy:<br>
<br>
"On 5/21/2014 , C.Benham wrote:<br>
<br>
45 A=C (sincere is A or A>B)<br>
35 B>A<br>
20 C>B<br>
<br>
B is the sincere IRV winner (and sincere CW), but if the method is
ER-IRV(whole) then B is eliminated and A wins.<br>
<br>
(This example also works if you change the 45/35/20 numbers to,
say, 49/48/3)."<br>
<br>
With a majority stopping rule this strategy doesn't work so well.
In this example it would fail because C would get a score of 65 in
the first round.<br>
<br>
With it the method fails Irrelevant Ballots Independence (like
Bucklin). That could perhaps be fixed by replacing the majority
stopping rule with a Dominant Candidate stopping rule, i.e. stop
when the leading candidate's score exceeds that candidate's
maximum pairwise opposition score from any remaining candidate.<br>
<br>
The other thing I don't like about is that we lose Hare's simple
sincere zero-info. strategy of just ranking sincerely. With this
method the voter should probably rank equal-top all the candidates
they would approve if the method was Approval and just sincerely
rank the rest.<br>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p>
<div>On 5/06/2024 6:36 am, Michael Ossipoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">In fact, some of us suggested to Richie allowing
equal-ranking, each vote counted whole, & he immediately
refused it.</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:51
Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Presumably they’ll consult FairVote, unless
they’ve already received FairVote’s advice.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Richie was always very adamant about
refusing any mitigation of IRV’s strategic trainwreck.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at
13:33 Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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" target="_blank">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>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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</blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" dir="auto"><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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>