Re: [EM] Poll Ballot, from Richard
If Biden loses Rhode Island, we'll have far bigger problems to worry about
than arguing about electoral reform on the internet.
Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537 votes
because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:04 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
How would I know what will happen in your state, whatever it is.
Maybe you’ll succeed there, or maybe you’ll just split the vote & lose.
But even if Biden wins in your state that doesn’t mean you & your state
aren’t splitting the non-Trump vote & giving the overall win to Trump.
But suit yourself.
Don’t be so overconfident. It could be a repeat of the Gore suckers in
2000.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 05:31 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Mmm yes I’m going to be the one “splitting the vote” when Biden wins my
state in a landslide, genius.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:22 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Sorry, I can’t control your voting in November.
You’re going to vote for Biden—or obediently for whomever the DNC says.
Trump will win because you insist on splitting the vote.
…& when Trump wins, don’t forget to congratulate yourself for achieving
that by your dishonest hold-your-nose sucker voting.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:01 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
And how do you intend to make that happen?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
My magic plan is honest voting.
Not splitting the non-Trump between honest voters & giveaway-sucker
voters.
Not having a high percentage of us throw their vote away on someone
none of us want.
Do you see the lunacy of most of the voters holding their nose &
voting for someone that none of us want?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 01:15 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
What’s your magic plan to make a third party candidate win in 2024? A
plan that doesn’t rely on unrepresentative Internet alternative method
polls.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:43 AM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:16 John T Whelan <
john.whelan@astro.rit.edu> wrote:
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.
No, it just means they aren’t lesser-evil suckers.
The-Two-Choices are for the suckers who believe whatever ther TV
tells them
e.g. the bizarre looney belief that two candidates & parties that
none of us want could be The-Two-Choices.
Yes, it would be better to have a better electoral system. That’s
why we’re all here.
But that doesn’t mean we have to continue to be such complete
suckers now.
Michael Ossipoff
From: Election-Methods <
election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com> on behalf of
Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:35:20 AM
To: Richard, the VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com <
election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Poll Ballot, from Richard
CAUTION: This message from outside RIT could not be authenticated.
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.
Please see article KB0042035 at help.rit.edu or contact the RIT
Service Center at 585-475-5000 for additional information.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 16:55 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
Michael, here is my ballot.
If you claim you need a full ranking, then I choose not to vote in
this
poll.
Richard—
Ballot recorded.
No, neither RP(wv), nor RCV, nor STV requires a full ranking. So
your ballot is perfectly technically valid & complete, as-is.
That's because I don't have time to research unfamiliar
candidates and unfamiliar parties.
Of course, that’s a good reason to vote a short ranking or a
1-candidate approval.
I & others voted that way in the voting-systems poll.
It would probably be as inappropriate as hell for the poll proposer
& conductor to comment on someone’s ballot.
But surely it would be okay for anyone here to reply to someone
else’s political comments, or evaluations of candidates & parties.
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.
But it probably wouldn’t be appropriate in the “official” reply
that acknowledges your ballot.
So I’ll reply in a separate post, immediately after this one.
In the candidate poll my ballot is that I rank Biden as the only
"approved" candidate -- even though I wish he would drop out and
transfer his delegate votes to nearly anyone.
I rank Trump at the bottom of the candidate list, below all the
other
candidates, because he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the
U.S.
economy as a favor to Putin, and destroy the U.S. military as
another
favor to Putin.
In between I rank all the other candidates at the same preference
level,
and not worth researching to rank them because they lack
high-level
executive experience and expertise.
In the party poll, I rank the Democratic party as the only
"approved"
party because it's the only party offering a viable candidate.
Under current circumstances I rank the Republican party at the
bottom of
the list, below all other parties. That's because they are not
offering
a candidate who wants to preserve fair elections, protect the U.S.
against its enemies, and improve the economy. As another flaw,
the new
Republican party platform claims the presidential election will
not be
fair if the Republican candidate doesn't win the presidential
election.
In case you didn't notice the above words "only approved party,"
I'll
clarify that all the parties other than the Democratic party are
"unapproved" because they do not offer viable candidates.
Apparently, in this poll, you want me to point to one party as the
one I
like. It's "none of the above." That's because I dislike all
current
U.S. political parties. Yes, I'm willing to "throw away" this
vote to
express this preference.
Clarification: I register with either the Republican or
Democratic
party so I can vote in the primary elections of one or the other
of the
two parties that supply viable nominees. I switch between those
two
parties periodically. I dislike them both. I also dislike all
third
parties.
My dislike of existing political parties is why I promote
election-method reform! If U.S. election reforms are
well-designed,
then in the future at least one U.S. party will be motivated to
offer
wise problem-solving leaders instead of whatever you want to call
their
current nominees.
Richard Fobes
On 7/16/2024 9:24 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
One reason for my voting 1st is to demonstrate what I mean by
the
voting-instructions:
...
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
list info
On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537
votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
Michael, thank you for this reply to Michael's comment (copied below).
It's much better worded than what came to my mind.
My view is that there is no such thing as a "spoiler candidate."
Instead it's called "vote splitting." It's a flaw in some vote-counting
methods. It's not a flaw in how voters vote. And it's not a flaw in
who chooses to enter or exit the contest.
Richard Fobes
On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
If Biden loses Rhode Island, we'll have far bigger problems to worry
about than arguing about electoral reform on the internet.
Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537
votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com
mailto:email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
How would I know what will happen in your state, whatever it is.
Maybe you’ll succeed there, or maybe you’ll just split the vote & lose.
But even if Biden wins *in your state* that doesn’t mean you & your
state aren’t splitting the non-Trump vote & giving the overall win
to Trump.
But suit yourself.
Don’t be so overconfident. It could be a repeat of the Gore suckers
in 2000.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 05:31 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>> wrote:
Mmm yes I’m going to be the one “splitting the vote” when Biden
wins my state in a landslide, genius.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:22 AM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sorry, I can’t control your voting in November.
You’re going to vote for Biden—or obediently for whomever
the DNC says.
Trump will win because you insist on splitting the vote.
…& when Trump wins, don’t forget to congratulate yourself
for achieving that by your dishonest hold-your-nose sucker
voting.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:01 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>> wrote:
And how do you intend to make that happen?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
wrote:
My magic plan is honest voting.
Not splitting the non-Trump between honest voters &
giveaway-sucker voters.
Not having a high percentage of us throw their vote
away on someone none of us want.
Do you see the lunacy of most of the voters holding
their nose & voting for someone that none of us want?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 01:15 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>> wrote:
What’s your magic plan to make a third party
candidate win in 2024? A plan that doesn’t rely
on unrepresentative Internet alternative method
polls.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:16 John T Whelan
<john.whelan@astro.rit.edu
<mailto:john.whelan@astro.rit.edu>> wrote:
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.
No, it just means they aren’t lesser-evil
suckers.
The-Two-Choices are for the suckers who
believe whatever ther TV tells them
e.g. the bizarre looney belief that two
candidates & parties that none of us want
could be The-Two-Choices.
Yes, it would be better to have a better
electoral system. That’s why we’re all here.
But that doesn’t mean we have to continue to
be such complete suckers now.
Michael Ossipoff
It's a weird and very undemocratic feature of the US system that getting
ballot access is very very difficult, and that it's possible for
candidates for the office of President of the whole US to be on the
ballot in some states but not others.
If the establishment Democrats and their media friends don't like the
split-vote feature of their system, then they should
campaign/lobby/vote/whatever to fix it.
The UK has a parliamentary system with the 650 members of the House of
Commons elected by FPP in single-member districts. The average number
of candidates per seat in the most recent general election was nearly 7.
There were 4515 candidates standing, which constitutes a record
number, with a mean of 6.95 candidates per constituency. No seat had
fewer than five people contesting it;Rishi Sunak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi_Sunak'sRichmond and
Northallerton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_and_Northallertonseat had the
most candidates, with thirteen.^[354]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#cite_note-376
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#See_also
Probably a lot of votes were involuntarily wasted and the Conservative
Party (the ruling party that was defeated by the Labour Party) was
stung more by the split-vote problem than was Labour. According to the
wikipedia article the Conservative Party got 23.7% of the vote and
another (much newer) right-wing party "Reform UK" got 14.3%.
This would have been a big factor in the extreme disproportionality of
the result, but at least the winning party was the one that got more
votes than any other.
The Labour Party won 63.2% of the seats with 33.7% of the vote. I am
sure that the result would have been less disproportional if Hare had
been used, at that turnout (that was the lowest in a long time) would
have been higher.
Smaller parties took a record 42.6 per cent of the vote in the
election, in part due to anti-Conservativetactical voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting.
What the last part refers to is that in some seats Labour had no chance
of winning, so voters whose favourite might have been Labour voted for a
third party that had some chance of defeating the Conservative.
The upside of this debacle is that it has apparently increased support
for some sort of PR. I think the version Labour likes is some
not-so-great fixed Party List system with some apportionment algorithm
that favours large parties (in comparison to other PR systems).
Chris B.
On 19/07/2024 3:04 am, Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537
votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
Michael, thank you for this reply to Michael's comment (copied below).
It's much better worded than what came to my mind.
My view is that there is no such thing as a "spoiler candidate."
Instead it's called "vote splitting." It's a flaw in some
vote-counting methods. It's not a flaw in how voters vote. And it's
not a flaw in who chooses to enter or exit the contest.
Richard Fobes
On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
If Biden loses Rhode Island, we'll have far bigger problems to worry
about than arguing about electoral reform on the internet.
Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537
votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:04 PM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com mailto:email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
How would I know what will happen in your state, whatever it is.
Maybe you’ll succeed there, or maybe you’ll just split the vote &
lose.
But even if Biden wins in your state that doesn’t mean you & your
state aren’t splitting the non-Trump vote & giving the overall win
to Trump.
But suit yourself.
Don’t be so overconfident. It could be a repeat of the Gore suckers
in 2000.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 05:31 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Mmm yes I’m going to be the one “splitting the vote” when Biden
wins my state in a landslide, genius.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:22 AM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com mailto:email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I can’t control your voting in November.
You’re going to vote for Biden—or obediently for whomever
the DNC says.
Trump will win because you insist on splitting the vote.
…& when Trump wins, don’t forget to congratulate yourself
for achieving that by your dishonest hold-your-nose sucker
voting.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:01 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
And how do you intend to make that happen?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
My magic plan is honest voting.
Not splitting the non-Trump between honest voters &
giveaway-sucker voters.
Not having a high percentage of us throw their vote
away on someone none of us want.
Do you see the lunacy of most of the voters holding
their nose & voting for someone that none of us
want?
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 01:15 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
What’s your magic plan to make a third party
candidate win in 2024? A plan that doesn’t rely
on unrepresentative Internet alternative method
polls.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com
mailto:email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:16 John T Whelan
<john.whelan@astro.rit.edu
mailto:john.whelan@astro.rit.edu> wrote:
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.
No, it just means they aren’t lesser-evil
suckers.
The-Two-Choices are for the suckers who
believe whatever ther TV tells them
e.g. the bizarre looney belief that two
candidates & parties that none of us want
could be The-Two-Choices.
Yes, it would be better to have a better
electoral system. That’s why we’re all here.
But that doesn’t mean we have to continue to
be such complete suckers now.
Michael Ossipoff
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info