<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="auto">Richard gets at the fundamental problem with polls like this: anyone willing to run for President as a third party candidate in the current political climate under the current electoral system has shown a lack of judgement and responsibility
which makes them an unacceptable choice. There are a number of people I'd rather see as President than Biden, but they're not running this year. Likewise, responsible alternative parties only seem to develop when they have a chance to participate in government.
If we had a real multi party system, the different factions in the established parties would make up 4-5 smaller parties that would govern in coalition.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">JTW</div>
<div dir="auto" id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container" dir="auto"><br>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" style="font-size: 11pt;"><strong>From:</strong> Election-Methods <election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com> on behalf of Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com><br>
<strong>Sent:</strong> Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:35:20 AM<br>
<strong>To:</strong> Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.org><br>
<strong>Cc:</strong> election-methods@lists.electorama.com <election-methods@lists.electorama.com><br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [EM] Poll Ballot, from Richard<br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr align="center" style="font-size: 17px; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-color: rgb(218, 41, 28);">
<td> <br>
CAUTION: This message from outside RIT could not be authenticated. <br>
<br>
If you do not recognize the email address of the person who sent the email, do not click on links, open attachments, or repond to the message.<br>
<br>
Please see article KB0042035 at help.rit.edu or contact the RIT Service Center at 585-475-5000 for additional information.<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 16:55 Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" dir="auto" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
Michael, here is my ballot.<br>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" dir="auto" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If you claim you need a full ranking, then I choose not to vote in this <br>
poll. </blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Richard—</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Ballot recorded.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" dir="auto" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">No, neither RP(wv), nor RCV, nor STV requires a full ranking. So your ballot is perfectly technically valid & complete, as-is.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" dir="auto" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
That's because I don't have time to research unfamiliar <br>
candidates and unfamiliar parties.</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Of course, that’s a good reason to vote a short ranking or a 1-candidate approval.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I & others voted that way in the voting-systems poll.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It would probably be as inappropriate as hell for the poll proposer & conductor to comment on someone’s ballot.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But surely it would be okay for anyone here to reply to someone else’s political comments, or evaluations of candidates & parties.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Such discussion is necessary, & there’s an understanding here that “electioneering” is part of polling…or at least should be permissible. I believe that it’s more than permissible: Discussion about why we vote as we do, & the expression of contrary
opinions, reactions or choices, are essential.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But it probably wouldn’t be appropriate in the “official” reply that acknowledges your ballot.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So I’ll reply in a separate post, immediately after this one. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" dir="auto" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
In the candidate poll my ballot is that I rank Biden as the only <br>
"approved" candidate -- even though I wish he would drop out and <br>
transfer his delegate votes to nearly anyone.<br>
<br>
I rank Trump at the bottom of the candidate list, below all the other <br>
candidates, because he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the U.S. <br>
economy as a favor to Putin, and destroy the U.S. military as another <br>
favor to Putin.<br>
<br>
In between I rank all the other candidates at the same preference level, <br>
and not worth researching to rank them because they lack high-level <br>
executive experience and expertise.<br>
<br>
In the party poll, I rank the Democratic party as the only "approved" <br>
party because it's the only party offering a viable candidate.<br>
<br>
Under current circumstances I rank the Republican party at the bottom of <br>
the list, below all other parties. That's because they are not offering <br>
a candidate who wants to preserve fair elections, protect the U.S. <br>
against its enemies, and improve the economy. As another flaw, the new <br>
Republican party platform claims the presidential election will not be <br>
fair if the Republican candidate doesn't win the presidential election.<br>
<br>
In case you didn't notice the above words "only approved party," I'll <br>
clarify that all the parties other than the Democratic party are <br>
"unapproved" because they do not offer viable candidates.<br>
<br>
Apparently, in this poll, you want me to point to one party as the one I <br>
like. It's "none of the above." That's because I dislike all current <br>
U.S. political parties. Yes, I'm willing to "throw away" this vote to <br>
express this preference.<br>
<br>
Clarification: I register with either the Republican or Democratic <br>
party so I can vote in the primary elections of one or the other of the <br>
two parties that supply viable nominees. I switch between those two <br>
parties periodically. I dislike them both. I also dislike all third <br>
parties.<br>
<br>
My dislike of existing political parties is why I promote <br>
election-method reform! If U.S. election reforms are well-designed, <br>
then in the future at least one U.S. party will be motivated to offer <br>
wise problem-solving leaders instead of whatever you want to call their <br>
current nominees.<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/16/2024 9:24 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
> One reason for my voting 1st is to demonstrate what I mean by the <br>
> voting-instructions:<br>
<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>
</div>
</body>
</html>