Re: [EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results
On 06/08/2024 12:36 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
It’s still implying that approval guarantees majority winners. You’re twisting yourself into knots to avoid the implication they clearly meant to present.
Like what implication are these folks making?
https://www.betterballotvermont.org/how-rcv-works
"If your favorite candidate can’t win, your vote counts instantly for your second choice, ..."
falsehood.
"[RCV] will ensure that the winner has the support of a true majority of voters."
another falsehood.
"Ranked choice voting allows more than two candidates to compete without fear of a “spoiler effect” ... "
another falsehood.
"Ranked choice voting ensures majority rule, rather than allowing a candidate to win with just 40 percent of the vote in a plurality."
They evidently think that 48% is a majority.
Michael, you might wanna be careful about being the pot calling the kettle "black".
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
I’m just asking that everyone be held to the same standards, Robert.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 3:32 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2024 12:36 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
It’s still implying that approval guarantees majority winners. You’re
twisting yourself into knots to avoid the implication they clearly meant to
present.
Like what implication are these folks making?
https://www.betterballotvermont.org/how-rcv-works
"If your favorite candidate can’t win, your vote counts instantly for your
second choice, ..."
falsehood.
"[RCV] will ensure that the winner has the support of a true majority of
voters."
another falsehood.
"Ranked choice voting allows more than two candidates to compete without
fear of a “spoiler effect” ... "
another falsehood.
"Ranked choice voting ensures majority rule, rather than allowing a
candidate to win with just 40 percent of the vote in a plurality."
They evidently think that 48% is a majority.
Michael, you might wanna be careful about being the pot calling the kettle
"black".
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 06/08/2024 3:33 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
I’m just asking that everyone be held to the same standards, Robert.
Same here. You may have noticed that I am also pretty hard on CES and Equal Vote Coalition even though now I am on pretty friendly terms with Nina Taylor (now CEO of CES) and with Arend Castelein and Sass at EVC (or even Rob Richie at FV).
But I am hard on any of these three organizations (or their surrogates) when they oversell the product.
Even your own organization is lying right outa the box with this:
"This means that if their favorite (1st choice) cannot win the election, their vote instantly counts toward their next choice. This type of power helps voters succeed in two kinds of election scenarios:
As a voter, with Ranked Choice Voting, you can always vote for the candidate you truly love without the fear of “throwing your vote away”. Even if your favorite is not a front-runner, you have backup choices, so your vote is never wasted, and your voice is always heard."
Sure, you can vote that way, but RCV does not guarantee that the voter doesn't shoot themselves in the foot when the actually do vote for the candidate they truly love. They may be well-advised to fear "throwing their vote away."
The Condorcet folks don't make the outlandish claims, so our product appears to people to perform less well, but it's really that we don't make outlandish claims.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
I’m not affiliated with FV.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 4:00 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2024 3:33 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I’m just asking that everyone be held to the same standards, Robert.
Same here. You may have noticed that I am also pretty hard on CES and
Equal Vote Coalition even though now I am on pretty friendly terms with
Nina Taylor (now CEO of CES) and with Arend Castelein and Sass at EVC (or
even Rob Richie at FV).
But I am hard on any of these three organizations (or their surrogates)
when they oversell the product.
Even your own organization is lying right outa the box with this:
"This means that if their favorite (1st choice) cannot win the election,
their vote instantly counts toward their next choice. This type of power
helps voters succeed in two kinds of election scenarios:
As a voter, with Ranked Choice Voting, you can always vote for the
candidate you truly love without the fear of “throwing your vote away”.
Even if your favorite is not a front-runner, you have backup choices, so
your vote is never wasted, and your voice is always heard."
Sure, you can vote that way, but RCV does not guarantee that the voter
doesn't shoot themselves in the foot when the actually do vote for the
candidate they truly love. They may be well-advised to fear "throwing
their vote away."
The Condorcet folks don't make the outlandish claims, so our product
appears to people to perform less well, but it's really that we don't make
outlandish claims.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Apologies; I misread your post and that’s not what you said.
The guarantee is that you’ll get to vote that way, not that you’ll always
win.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 4:03 PM Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I’m not affiliated with FV.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 4:00 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2024 3:33 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I’m just asking that everyone be held to the same standards, Robert.
Same here. You may have noticed that I am also pretty hard on CES and
Equal Vote Coalition even though now I am on pretty friendly terms with
Nina Taylor (now CEO of CES) and with Arend Castelein and Sass at EVC (or
even Rob Richie at FV).
But I am hard on any of these three organizations (or their surrogates)
when they oversell the product.
Even your own organization is lying right outa the box with this:
"This means that if their favorite (1st choice) cannot win the election,
their vote instantly counts toward their next choice. This type of power
helps voters succeed in two kinds of election scenarios:
As a voter, with Ranked Choice Voting, you can always vote for the
candidate you truly love without the fear of “throwing your vote away”.
Even if your favorite is not a front-runner, you have backup choices, so
your vote is never wasted, and your voice is always heard."
Sure, you can vote that way, but RCV does not guarantee that the voter
doesn't shoot themselves in the foot when the actually do vote for the
candidate they truly love. They may be well-advised to fear "throwing
their vote away."
The Condorcet folks don't make the outlandish claims, so our product
appears to people to perform less well, but it's really that we don't make
outlandish claims.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 06/08/2024 4:06 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Apologies; I misread your post and that’s not what you said.
You may have noticed that I quoted your organization (that has a nice mugshot of you), not FairVote.
The guarantee is that you’ll get to vote that way, not that you’ll always win.
And it's a false guarantee. Proven so in four RCV elections (about 0.8%) in the U.S. Two of those four elections could have provided that comfort (there is no guarantee) to voters, but for the failure of the method to tally the vote.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Oh no…it only works 99.2% of the time! The horror!
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 4:18 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2024 4:06 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Apologies; I misread your post and that’s not what you said.
You may have noticed that I quoted your organization (that has a nice
mugshot of you), not FairVote.
The guarantee is that you’ll get to vote that way, not that you’ll
always win.
And it's a false guarantee. Proven so in four RCV elections (about 0.8%)
in the U.S. Two of those four elections could have provided that comfort
(there is no guarantee) to voters, but for the failure of the method to
tally the vote.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 06/08/2024 4:20 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Oh no…it only works 99.2% of the time! The horror!
Could work 99.6% of the time. Or we could revert to FPTP and it works 97% of the time (i.e. in less than 3% of RCV elections, a difference occurs in who is elected). The failure rate of FPTP is not all that bad, yet there is your organization, FairVote, RCVRC, dozens of state/local organizations, with scores of employees committed to correcting that 3%.
But not interested in correcting their own flaws. So much so that they lie about the performance of their own product and they lie about the objective failures when they do occur.
A bridge or some other construction that failed, unnecessarily, 0.4% of the time that it is used would not be considered acceptable. But elections are less important than bridges.
You see, Michael, when the stakes are high, even low failure rates become important. The Electoral College hasn't failed all that often, but because in recent times it has failed twice, 16 years apart, that's bringing attention to the systemic failure (because this failure is favoring a particular side).
As RCV is used more and more, these other failures will happen more often. Each time this failure occurs, especially when the failure is unnecessary and avoidable, bad shit happens. Like repeal efforts that get on the ballot.
So the question is, do RCV advocates learn from these glitches? Or continue to deny the failures or minimize the significance of the failure?
You are clearly in the latter group. You haven't learned yet that course corrections early in the voyage are less costly than later in the voyage. We're quite early in the voyage of RCV reform, there is solid evidence of not heading in the intended direction, yet you continue to deny the indication of a course correction and insist that we dig in deeper and commit to exactly the same heading that has already demonstrated the need for adjustment.
The need for adjustment is multi-faceted (another thing you ignore). Especially with the nut-cases challenging the legitimacy of election results along with T**** and sycophants actually trying to simply fudge the election results, any reform that causes a reversion or roll-back of process transparency hurts the election reform movement. Right now, with FPTP, we have redundancy in tabulation and we can tell who wins directly from the tallies posted at the source (the polling places) on the evening of the election. This is what protects us from some corrupt official simply fudging the numbers and "finding, uh, 11780, uh, votes."
Secretary of State Raffenberger was not (and is not) corrupt, but Jeffery Clark (a different high official) obviously is. We need process transparency to prevent a corrupt election official from fudging the numbers from the tallies. We need decentralization and process transparency to prevent the QAnon assholes from making any credible claims that accurate tallies were fudged. We lose all that with Hare RCV. And like the 0.4% of the Hare RCV that failed, this loss is unnecessary.
But you're still in denial.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
I'm happy to make tweaks! I don't have all the answers, Bob. I've never
pretended to.
My issue is with the people -- many of whom are on this list -- who view
something that fails less than 1% of the time as insufficiently preferable
to the status quo and would encourage voters to reject it in favor of
preserving FPP.
Advocate for the best currently viable option != accept it as the best
we'll ever have.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 5:40 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2024 4:20 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Oh no…it only works 99.2% of the time! The horror!
Could work 99.6% of the time. Or we could revert to FPTP and it works 97%
of the time (i.e. in less than 3% of RCV elections, a difference occurs in
who is elected). The failure rate of FPTP is not all that bad, yet there
is your organization, FairVote, RCVRC, dozens of state/local organizations,
with scores of employees committed to correcting that 3%.
But not interested in correcting their own flaws. So much so that they
lie about the performance of their own product and they lie about the
objective failures when they do occur.
A bridge or some other construction that failed, unnecessarily, 0.4% of
the time that it is used would not be considered acceptable. But elections
are less important than bridges.
You see, Michael, when the stakes are high, even low failure rates become
important. The Electoral College hasn't failed all that often, but because
in recent times it has failed twice, 16 years apart, that's bringing
attention to the systemic failure (because this failure is favoring a
particular side).
As RCV is used more and more, these other failures will happen more
often. Each time this failure occurs, especially when the failure is
unnecessary and avoidable, bad shit happens. Like repeal efforts that get
on the ballot.
So the question is, do RCV advocates learn from these glitches? Or
continue to deny the failures or minimize the significance of the failure?
You are clearly in the latter group. You haven't learned yet that course
corrections early in the voyage are less costly than later in the voyage.
We're quite early in the voyage of RCV reform, there is solid evidence of
not heading in the intended direction, yet you continue to deny the
indication of a course correction and insist that we dig in deeper and
commit to exactly the same heading that has already demonstrated the need
for adjustment.
The need for adjustment is multi-faceted (another thing you ignore).
Especially with the nut-cases challenging the legitimacy of election
results along with T**** and sycophants actually trying to simply fudge
the election results, any reform that causes a reversion or roll-back of
process transparency hurts the election reform movement. Right now, with
FPTP, we have redundancy in tabulation and we can tell who wins directly
from the tallies posted at the source (the polling places) on the evening
of the election. This is what protects us from some corrupt official
simply fudging the numbers and "finding, uh, 11780, uh, votes."
Secretary of State Raffenberger was not (and is not) corrupt, but Jeffery
Clark (a different high official) obviously is. We need process
transparency to prevent a corrupt election official from fudging the
numbers from the tallies. We need decentralization and process
transparency to prevent the QAnon assholes from making any credible claims
that accurate tallies were fudged. We lose all that with Hare RCV. And
like the 0.4% of the Hare RCV that failed, this loss is unnecessary.
But you're still in denial.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
The QAnon idiots will cry fraud no matter what if their candidate loses.
Hell, at least one Green shill is still crying foul about FPP tabulations
from a quarter century ago! We can't let the conspiracy theorists win.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 5:44 PM Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I'm happy to make tweaks! I don't have all the answers, Bob. I've never
pretended to.
My issue is with the people -- many of whom are on this list -- who view
something that fails less than 1% of the time as insufficiently preferable
to the status quo and would encourage voters to reject it in favor of
preserving FPP.
Advocate for the best currently viable option != accept it as the best
we'll ever have.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 5:40 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2024 4:20 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Oh no…it only works 99.2% of the time! The horror!
Could work 99.6% of the time. Or we could revert to FPTP and it works
97% of the time (i.e. in less than 3% of RCV elections, a difference occurs
in who is elected). The failure rate of FPTP is not all that bad, yet
there is your organization, FairVote, RCVRC, dozens of state/local
organizations, with scores of employees committed to correcting that 3%.
But not interested in correcting their own flaws. So much so that they
lie about the performance of their own product and they lie about the
objective failures when they do occur.
A bridge or some other construction that failed, unnecessarily, 0.4% of
the time that it is used would not be considered acceptable. But elections
are less important than bridges.
You see, Michael, when the stakes are high, even low failure rates become
important. The Electoral College hasn't failed all that often, but because
in recent times it has failed twice, 16 years apart, that's bringing
attention to the systemic failure (because this failure is favoring a
particular side).
As RCV is used more and more, these other failures will happen more
often. Each time this failure occurs, especially when the failure is
unnecessary and avoidable, bad shit happens. Like repeal efforts that get
on the ballot.
So the question is, do RCV advocates learn from these glitches? Or
continue to deny the failures or minimize the significance of the failure?
You are clearly in the latter group. You haven't learned yet that course
corrections early in the voyage are less costly than later in the voyage.
We're quite early in the voyage of RCV reform, there is solid evidence of
not heading in the intended direction, yet you continue to deny the
indication of a course correction and insist that we dig in deeper and
commit to exactly the same heading that has already demonstrated the need
for adjustment.
The need for adjustment is multi-faceted (another thing you ignore).
Especially with the nut-cases challenging the legitimacy of election
results along with T**** and sycophants actually trying to simply fudge
the election results, any reform that causes a reversion or roll-back of
process transparency hurts the election reform movement. Right now, with
FPTP, we have redundancy in tabulation and we can tell who wins directly
from the tallies posted at the source (the polling places) on the evening
of the election. This is what protects us from some corrupt official
simply fudging the numbers and "finding, uh, 11780, uh, votes."
Secretary of State Raffenberger was not (and is not) corrupt, but Jeffery
Clark (a different high official) obviously is. We need process
transparency to prevent a corrupt election official from fudging the
numbers from the tallies. We need decentralization and process
transparency to prevent the QAnon assholes from making any credible claims
that accurate tallies were fudged. We lose all that with Hare RCV. And
like the 0.4% of the Hare RCV that failed, this loss is unnecessary.
But you're still in denial.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info