MG
Michael Garman
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 3:57 AM
They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
What evidence have you got?
I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there have
been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
out that they'd been lied to.
Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
So I should bring you a list of their names?
:-)
The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of FairVote's
promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in general.
Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
confidence!
Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
"a fair number of repeals of RCV"
One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
year.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
others.
...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people find
out that it isn't what it was sold as.
...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform in
general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal, etc.,that's
a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
the ballot. I hope it wins!
You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
electoral-reform itself.
The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
progreess.
The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
There other other words for it.
Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording &
imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has set
electoral-reform back decades.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
and sowing division within the limited base of support
Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie is
common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
years, by various members of the community.
for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new people
to support our cause.
People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
fraud-supported "cause".
Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
eliminated."
...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
As it's written, that passage is a lie.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
language you cite. Satisfied?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
second choice
No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
!!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
.
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
their next choice."
That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
Voting".
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
your claim…
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
" RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
“…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have
already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported
claim was !
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
electoral-reform community.
The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
incorrect statement.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
You evidently think fraud is good.
I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
…intentional lying to sell a product.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
whatsoever.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
(STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
FairVote.
Thus, RCV is a fraud.
Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t
be supported.
Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
advocate for it.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
Lying to sell something is called fraud.
RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
like that when they find out.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
My response to Michael's second paragraph below
is admittedly a "rant"
that's intended to reveal insights about what's
going on under the
surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
especially in Oregon. In
other words, what I've written in response to
Michael's second paragraph
is not directed at Michael.
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
RCVRC.
To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and
for taking time to
educate me about the lack of official
collaboration between RCVRC and
FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping
NYC to adopt ranked
choice ballots!
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
of election-method
reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
pushing STAR voting, with
lots of financial assistance.
One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
current versions of IRV
software do not allow giving the same preference
level to two or more
candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR
ballots do allow this
kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
ballots" in real IRV
elections as evidence of the importance of this
issue (even though an
overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice
ballot can be
categorized as "spoiled").
If the FairVote organization were more honest
about the importance of
being able to rank multiple candidates at the
same preference level, the
fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
push IRV fans into
becoming STAR fans.
History: Interestingly the primary financial
backer behind STAR voting
started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
about 20 years ago a
friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
from the Eugene newspaper
in which that person, the son of a university
president there, was
promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in
Eugene had heard me
promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what
are now called "ranked
choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis,
but traveled to
dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
some people in Eugene
thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
"order-of-preference
ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
where IRV was adopted
later after I moved away.
My opposition is against the misinformation about
so-called "overvotes."
I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
push IRV through the
Oregon legislature.
For about two decades I've been offering
constructive criticism to IRV
fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
suggestions are regarded as not
important enough for them to seriously consider.
I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
the unfair results of
IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
election in Alaska.
Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
the idea of adopting
IRV and then, later, improving the counting
software.
That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
eliminating "pairwise
losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
aware that this refinement
will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
counting overvotes.
In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
criticize IRV as being
vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
this effect will
disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
candidates are eliminated when
they occur.
So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
basically "white lies"
-- from both the FairVote organization and the
fans of STAR voting (who
loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
Coalition), both of whom are
well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
Science Foundation also
promotes misrepresentations.
To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
I'm attacking their
misrepresentations.
I realize that sometimes those organizations are
trying to keep things
simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
those simplifications
become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
It's important to understand that the fans of
STAR voting wouldn't be
getting so many signatures on their current
statewide petition to adopt
STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
FairVote had not been so
adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
enough signatures on their
petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
elections if they hadn't
co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
"better kind of ranked
choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
petition-based referendum has
already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
ballot.
To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
STAR voting; rather I'm
opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
statewide ranked choice ballot
initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are
doing this by pushing
a separate statewide STAR petition.
That's a misrepresentation because they criticize
ranked choice voting
as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
the already-scheduled
November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
"overvotes" so that the
wording is compatible with future software.
FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
countable has contributed to
this attack against IRV.
Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
promoting ranked choice
ballots for three decades, although previously
under the names
"order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."
Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
mayoral election and STV
for city council elections. (In spite of
opposition from a fan of STAR
voting who was on the charter amendment
committee.)
And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
ranked-choice-voting
referendum that will appear statewide on the
November ballot -- with no
mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
details, because of my
influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
against this bill.)
The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
STAR fans, and the
Election Science Foundation is undermining
support for Portland's
reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
choice ballots for electing
our governor and our members of Congress.
I'm not intending to suggest there is any
conspiracy between the
organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the
donations going to
these organizations would decline if they were to
increase cooperation
and avoid misrepresentation.
I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature
being the first state
legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
to adopt ranked choice
ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
beneficial tipping point
for civilization! (Other states that have
adopted ranked choice voting
have had to do it by gathering signatures on
petitions.)
My anger is directed at the people who undermine
this progress toward
adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
software.
That better software will correctly count
mythical "overvotes."
And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
(independence of
irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
criticized as either
Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
failures.
My request to all election-method reform
organizations and individuals
is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
least to Oregon voters, so
the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum
passes with support
from a majority of Oregon voters.
To everyone still reading this far, thank you for
reading my rant.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
exist.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman wrote:
The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that the
Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
affiliated with FairVote.
Then why does RCVRC have the same
misunderstanding that the leader of
the FairVote organization has been pushing
Especially, I'd like to understand why
RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than
ignoring the remaining rankings!
That skipping option works in Australia
where a voter hand-writes a
number next to each candidate's name.
(They don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just
one box for each candidate.)
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
"choice" columns. And where ballot real
estate is very important.
(In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum
for Oregon adopts RCV for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause
Oregon ballots to require more
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website --
RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any
ballot where you mark more than
one candidate for the same rank – in other
words, if you fill in more
than one oval in the same column."
Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
correctly count those marks?
(Just pair up equivalent ballots and
allocate those "paired" ballots in
equal numbers to those same-ranked
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:27 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> >> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>
>> What evidence have you got?
>>
>
>
>> I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
>>
>
> I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there have
> been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
> out that they'd been lied to.
>
> Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
> surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
> different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
>
> So I should bring you a list of their names?
>
> :-)
>
> The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of FairVote's
> promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in general.
> Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Garman <
>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
>>>> confidence!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
>>>
>>> Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
>>> FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
>>> confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "a fair number of repeals of RCV"
>>>>
>>>> One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
>>>>>> winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
>>>>>> improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
>>>>> found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people find
>>>>> out that it isn't what it was sold as.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform in
>>>>> general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal, etc.,that's
>>>>> a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
>>>>>> primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
>>>>>> the ballot. I hope it wins!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
>>>>>> destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
>>>>> As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>> Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
>>>>> destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
>>>>> electoral-reform itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
>>>>> FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
>>>>> rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
>>>>> know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
>>>>> progreess.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
>>>>>> FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
>>>>>> the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
>>>>> There other other words for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording &
>>>>>>> imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
>>>>>>>> chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has set
>>>>>>> electoral-reform back decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and sowing division within the limited base of support
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie is
>>>>>>>>> common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
>>>>>>>>> discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
>>>>>>>>> years, by various members of the community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new people
>>>>>>>>>> to support our cause.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
>>>>>>>>> fraud-supported "cause".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>> eliminated."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As it's written, that passage is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
>>>>>>>>>>>> language you cite. Satisfied?
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
>>>>>>>>>>>>> !!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s how it works :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their next choice."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > " RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim was !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electoral-reform community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying to sell something is called fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like that when they find out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My response to Michael's second paragraph below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is admittedly a "rant"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's intended to reveal insights about what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially in Oregon. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, what I've written in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael's second paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not directed at Michael.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for taking time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educate me about the lack of official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration between RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC to adopt ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election-method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing STAR voting, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of financial assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current versions of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software do not allow giving the same preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level to two or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots do allow this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" in real IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections as evidence of the importance of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue (even though an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> categorized as "spoiled").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the FairVote organization were more honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to rank multiple candidates at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same preference level, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV fans into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becoming STAR fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History: Interestingly the primary financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backer behind STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 20 years ago a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Eugene newspaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which that person, the son of a university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> president there, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eugene had heard me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are now called "ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but traveled to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where IRV was adopted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later after I moved away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opposition is against the misinformation about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon legislature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For about two decades I've been offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive criticism to IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions are regarded as not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unfair results of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election in Alaska.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea of adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV and then, later, improving the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating "pairwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware that this refinement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counting overvotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize IRV as being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates are eliminated when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically "white lies"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- from both the FairVote organization and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting (who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coalition), both of whom are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science Foundation also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm attacking their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize that sometimes those organizations are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to keep things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's important to understand that the fans of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting so many signatures on their current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide petition to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote had not been so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough signatures on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "better kind of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition-based referendum has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting; rather I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide ranked choice ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing this by pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a misrepresentation because they criticize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the already-scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes" so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording is compatible with future software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countable has contributed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this attack against IRV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for three decades, although previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mayoral election and STV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for city council elections. (In spite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition from a fan of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting who was on the charter amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked-choice-voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum that will appear statewide on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November ballot -- with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, because of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against this bill.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR fans, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election Science Foundation is undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support for Portland's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots for electing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our governor and our members of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not intending to suggest there is any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> donations going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these organizations would decline if they were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase cooperation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and avoid misrepresentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the first state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial tipping point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for civilization! (Other states that have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had to do it by gathering signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petitions.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My anger is directed at the people who undermine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this progress toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That better software will correctly count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mythical "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (independence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticized as either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My request to all election-method reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations and individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least to Oregon voters, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes with support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone still reading this far, thank you for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading my rant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <electionmethods@votefair.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an independent entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ranked Choice Voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affiliated with FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Then why does RCVRC have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that the leader of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the FairVote organization has been pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for decades?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Especially, I'd like to understand why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Oregon election officials the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > recommended option. That's worse than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the remaining rankings!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That skipping option works in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where a voter hand-writes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > number next to each candidate's name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (They don't have to worry about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "ballot real estate" because there is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one box for each candidate.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we mark ovals in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "choice" columns. And where ballot real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estate is very important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Oregon adopts RCV for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > just a limited number of contests because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election officials were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > concerned that adopting it would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon ballots to require more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one sheet of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I see that your website --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > elections "The scanner will reject any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot where you mark more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > one candidate for the same rank – in other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, if you fill in more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one oval in the same column."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly count those marks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (Just pair up equivalent ballots and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate those "paired" ballots in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > equal numbers to those same-ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 4:21 AM
...so you think that the Republicans wanting to ban RCV has nothing to do
with their being on the wrong end of violations of FairVote's promise about
RCV.
When it was Republicans' 2nd choice that was no longer there when they
needed to transfer to it?
Yes obviously both of the right-wings of theRepublocratic party don't want
electoral-reform, but the Republicans have seen the promise violated in
their disfavor every time, giving them particularly obvious immediate
incentive to ban RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:57 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
What evidence have you got?
I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there have
been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
out that they'd been lied to.
Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
So I should bring you a list of their names?
:-)
The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of
FairVote's promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in
general. Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
confidence!
Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
"a fair number of repeals of RCV"
One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
year.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
others.
...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people
find out that it isn't what it was sold as.
...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform
in general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal,
etc.,that's a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
the ballot. I hope it wins!
You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
electoral-reform itself.
The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
progreess.
The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
There other other words for it.
Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording
& imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has
set electoral-reform back decades.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
and sowing division within the limited base of support
Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie
is common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
years, by various members of the community.
for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new
people to support our cause.
People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
fraud-supported "cause".
Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
eliminated."
...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
As it's written, that passage is a lie.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
language you cite. Satisfied?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
second choice
No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
!!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
.
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
their next choice."
That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
Voting".
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
your claim…
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
" RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
“…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d
have already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my
unsupported claim was !
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
electoral-reform community.
The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
incorrect statement.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
You evidently think fraud is good.
I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
…intentional lying to sell a product.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
whatsoever.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
(STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
FairVote.
Thus, RCV is a fraud.
Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud
shouldn’t be supported.
Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
advocate for it.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
Lying to sell something is called fraud.
RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
like that when they find out.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org
wrote:
My response to Michael's second paragraph below
is admittedly a "rant"
that's intended to reveal insights about what's
going on under the
surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
especially in Oregon. In
other words, what I've written in response to
Michael's second paragraph
is not directed at Michael.
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
the RCVRC.
To Michael: Thank you for this clarification,
and for taking time to
educate me about the lack of official
collaboration between RCVRC and
FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are
helping NYC to adopt ranked
choice ballots!
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
of election-method
reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
pushing STAR voting, with
lots of financial assistance.
One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
current versions of IRV
software do not allow giving the same preference
level to two or more
candidates. They push STAR voting by saying
STAR ballots do allow this
kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
ballots" in real IRV
elections as evidence of the importance of this
issue (even though an
overvote is just one way in which a ranked
choice ballot can be
categorized as "spoiled").
If the FairVote organization were more honest
about the importance of
being able to rank multiple candidates at the
same preference level, the
fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
push IRV fans into
becoming STAR fans.
History: Interestingly the primary financial
backer behind STAR voting
started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
about 20 years ago a
friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
from the Eugene newspaper
in which that person, the son of a university
president there, was
promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend
in Eugene had heard me
promoting to her and other friends in Eugene
what are now called "ranked
choice ballots." Back then I lived in
Corvallis, but traveled to
dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
some people in Eugene
thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
"order-of-preference
ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
where IRV was adopted
later after I moved away.
My opposition is against the misinformation
about so-called "overvotes."
I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
push IRV through the
Oregon legislature.
For about two decades I've been offering
constructive criticism to IRV
fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
suggestions are regarded as not
important enough for them to seriously consider.
I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
the unfair results of
IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
election in Alaska.
Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
the idea of adopting
IRV and then, later, improving the counting
software.
That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
eliminating "pairwise
losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
aware that this refinement
will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
counting overvotes.
In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
criticize IRV as being
vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
this effect will
disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
candidates are eliminated when
they occur.
So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
basically "white lies"
-- from both the FairVote organization and the
fans of STAR voting (who
loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
Coalition), both of whom are
well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
Science Foundation also
promotes misrepresentations.
To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
I'm attacking their
misrepresentations.
I realize that sometimes those organizations are
trying to keep things
simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
those simplifications
become oversimplifications and
misrepresentations.
It's important to understand that the fans of
STAR voting wouldn't be
getting so many signatures on their current
statewide petition to adopt
STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
FairVote had not been so
adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
enough signatures on their
petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
elections if they hadn't
co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
"better kind of ranked
choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
petition-based referendum has
already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
ballot.
To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
STAR voting; rather I'm
opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
statewide ranked choice ballot
initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They
are doing this by pushing
a separate statewide STAR petition.
That's a misrepresentation because they
criticize ranked choice voting
as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
the already-scheduled
November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
"overvotes" so that the
wording is compatible with future software.
FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
countable has contributed to
this attack against IRV.
Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
promoting ranked choice
ballots for three decades, although previously
under the names
"order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3
ballots."
Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
mayoral election and STV
for city council elections. (In spite of
opposition from a fan of STAR
voting who was on the charter amendment
committee.)
And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
ranked-choice-voting
referendum that will appear statewide on the
November ballot -- with no
mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
details, because of my
influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
against this bill.)
The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
STAR fans, and the
Election Science Foundation is undermining
support for Portland's
reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
choice ballots for electing
our governor and our members of Congress.
I'm not intending to suggest there is any
conspiracy between the
organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of
the donations going to
these organizations would decline if they were
to increase cooperation
and avoid misrepresentation.
I continue to believe that the Oregon
legislature being the first state
legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
to adopt ranked choice
ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
beneficial tipping point
for civilization! (Other states that have
adopted ranked choice voting
have had to do it by gathering signatures on
petitions.)
My anger is directed at the people who undermine
this progress toward
adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
software.
That better software will correctly count
mythical "overvotes."
And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
(independence of
irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
criticized as either
Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
failures.
My request to all election-method reform
organizations and individuals
is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
least to Oregon voters, so
the November 2024 ranked choice voting
referendum passes with support
from a majority of Oregon voters.
To everyone still reading this far, thank you
for reading my rant.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
exist.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman
The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
Center is an independent entity
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
affiliated with FairVote.
Then why does RCVRC have the same
misunderstanding that the leader of
the FairVote organization has been pushing
Especially, I'd like to understand why
RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than
ignoring the remaining rankings!
That skipping option works in Australia
where a voter hand-writes a
number next to each candidate's name.
(They don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just
one box for each candidate.)
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
"choice" columns. And where ballot real
estate is very important.
(In fact, the upcoming statewide
referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause
Oregon ballots to require more
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website --
RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any
ballot where you mark more than
one candidate for the same rank – in
other words, if you fill in more
than one oval in the same column."
Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
correctly count those marks?
(Just pair up equivalent ballots and
allocate those "paired" ballots in
equal numbers to those same-ranked
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
...so you think that the Republicans wanting to ban RCV has nothing to do
with their being on the wrong end of violations of FairVote's promise about
RCV.
When it was Republicans' 2nd choice that was no longer there when they
needed to transfer to it?
Yes obviously both of the right-wings of theRepublocratic party don't want
electoral-reform, but the Republicans have seen the promise violated in
their disfavor every time, giving them particularly obvious immediate
incentive to ban RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:57 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
> because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
> Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:27 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> >> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>
>>> What evidence have you got?
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there have
>> been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
>> out that they'd been lied to.
>>
>> Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
>> surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
>> different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
>>
>> So I should bring you a list of their names?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of
>> FairVote's promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in
>> general. Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
>>>>> confidence!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
>>>>
>>>> Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
>>>> FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
>>>> confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "a fair number of repeals of RCV"
>>>>>
>>>>> One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
>>>>>>> winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
>>>>>>> improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
>>>>>> found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people
>>>>>> find out that it isn't what it was sold as.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform
>>>>>> in general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal,
>>>>>> etc.,that's a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
>>>>>>> primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
>>>>>>> the ballot. I hope it wins!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
>>>>>>> destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
>>>>>> As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
>>>>>> destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
>>>>>> electoral-reform itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
>>>>>> FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
>>>>>> rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
>>>>>> know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
>>>>>> progreess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
>>>>>>> FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
>>>>>>> the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
>>>>>> There other other words for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording
>>>>>>>> & imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
>>>>>>>>> chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has
>>>>>>>> set electoral-reform back decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and sowing division within the limited base of support
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie
>>>>>>>>>> is common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
>>>>>>>>>> discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
>>>>>>>>>> years, by various members of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new
>>>>>>>>>>> people to support our cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
>>>>>>>>>> fraud-supported "cause".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As it's written, that passage is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language you cite. Satisfied?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> !!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s how it works :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their next choice."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > " RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported claim was !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electoral-reform community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn’t be supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying to sell something is called fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like that when they find out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My response to Michael's second paragraph below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is admittedly a "rant"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's intended to reveal insights about what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially in Oregon. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, what I've written in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael's second paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not directed at Michael.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for taking time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educate me about the lack of official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration between RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping NYC to adopt ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election-method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing STAR voting, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of financial assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current versions of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software do not allow giving the same preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level to two or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates. They push STAR voting by saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR ballots do allow this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" in real IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections as evidence of the importance of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue (even though an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overvote is just one way in which a ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballot can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> categorized as "spoiled").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the FairVote organization were more honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to rank multiple candidates at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same preference level, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV fans into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becoming STAR fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History: Interestingly the primary financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backer behind STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 20 years ago a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Eugene newspaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which that person, the son of a university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> president there, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Eugene had heard me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are now called "ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots." Back then I lived in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corvallis, but traveled to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where IRV was adopted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later after I moved away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opposition is against the misinformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about so-called "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon legislature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For about two decades I've been offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive criticism to IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions are regarded as not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unfair results of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election in Alaska.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea of adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV and then, later, improving the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating "pairwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware that this refinement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counting overvotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize IRV as being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates are eliminated when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically "white lies"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- from both the FairVote organization and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting (who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coalition), both of whom are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science Foundation also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm attacking their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize that sometimes those organizations are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to keep things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become oversimplifications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's important to understand that the fans of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting so many signatures on their current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide petition to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote had not been so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough signatures on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "better kind of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition-based referendum has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting; rather I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide ranked choice ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing this by pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a misrepresentation because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the already-scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes" so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording is compatible with future software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countable has contributed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this attack against IRV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for three decades, although previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mayoral election and STV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for city council elections. (In spite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition from a fan of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting who was on the charter amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked-choice-voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum that will appear statewide on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November ballot -- with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, because of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against this bill.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR fans, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election Science Foundation is undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support for Portland's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots for electing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our governor and our members of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not intending to suggest there is any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the donations going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these organizations would decline if they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to increase cooperation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and avoid misrepresentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that the Oregon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature being the first state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial tipping point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for civilization! (Other states that have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had to do it by gathering signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petitions.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My anger is directed at the people who undermine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this progress toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That better software will correctly count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mythical "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (independence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticized as either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My request to all election-method reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations and individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least to Oregon voters, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the November 2024 ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum passes with support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone still reading this far, thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading my rant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <electionmethods@votefair.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Center is an independent entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Ranked Choice Voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affiliated with FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Then why does RCVRC have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that the leader of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the FairVote organization has been pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for decades?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Especially, I'd like to understand why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Oregon election officials the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > recommended option. That's worse than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the remaining rankings!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That skipping option works in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where a voter hand-writes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > number next to each candidate's name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (They don't have to worry about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "ballot real estate" because there is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one box for each candidate.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we mark ovals in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "choice" columns. And where ballot real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estate is very important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (In fact, the upcoming statewide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > just a limited number of contests because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election officials were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > concerned that adopting it would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon ballots to require more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one sheet of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I see that your website --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > elections "The scanner will reject any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot where you mark more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > one candidate for the same rank – in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, if you fill in more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one oval in the same column."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly count those marks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (Just pair up equivalent ballots and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate those "paired" ballots in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > equal numbers to those same-ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MG
Michael Garman
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 4:33 AM
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:22 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
...so you think that the Republicans wanting to ban RCV has nothing to do
with their being on the wrong end of violations of FairVote's promise about
RCV.
When it was Republicans' 2nd choice that was no longer there when they
needed to transfer to it?
Yes obviously both of the right-wings of theRepublocratic party don't want
electoral-reform, but the Republicans have seen the promise violated in
their disfavor every time, giving them particularly obvious immediate
incentive to ban RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:57 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
What evidence have you got?
I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there
have been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they
found out that they'd been lied to.
Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
So I should bring you a list of their names?
:-)
The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of
FairVote's promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in
general. Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
confidence!
Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
"a fair number of repeals of RCV"
One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters
last year.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that
includes winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are
massive improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
others.
...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people
find out that it isn't what it was sold as.
...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform
in general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal,
etc.,that's a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
the ballot. I hope it wins!
You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
electoral-reform itself.
The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
progreess.
The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
There other other words for it.
Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a
lie."
You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording
& imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has
set electoral-reform back decades.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
and sowing division within the limited base of support
Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie
is common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
years, by various members of the community.
for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new
people to support our cause.
People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
fraud-supported "cause".
Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
eliminated."
...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted
passage.
As it's written, that passage is a lie.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
language you cite. Satisfied?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
second choice
No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
!!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
.
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count
for their next choice."
That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
Voting".
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
your claim…
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
" RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with
the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all?
Oops! Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
“…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d
have already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy
of spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's
in my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my
unsupported claim was !
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among
the electoral-reform community.
The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
incorrect statement.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
You evidently think fraud is good.
I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
…intentional lying to sell a product.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
whatsoever.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
(STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is
a nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
FairVote.
Thus, RCV is a fraud.
Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud
shouldn’t be supported.
Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
advocate for it.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
Lying to sell something is called fraud.
RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
like that when they find out.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org
wrote:
My response to Michael's second paragraph below
is admittedly a "rant"
that's intended to reveal insights about what's
going on under the
surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
especially in Oregon. In
other words, what I've written in response to
Michael's second paragraph
is not directed at Michael.
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
the RCVRC.
To Michael: Thank you for this clarification,
and for taking time to
educate me about the lack of official
collaboration between RCVRC and
FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are
helping NYC to adopt ranked
choice ballots!
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as
part of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
For those who don't know, here in Oregon a
group of election-method
reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
pushing STAR voting, with
lots of financial assistance.
One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is
that current versions of IRV
software do not allow giving the same
preference level to two or more
candidates. They push STAR voting by saying
STAR ballots do allow this
kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
ballots" in real IRV
elections as evidence of the importance of this
issue (even though an
overvote is just one way in which a ranked
choice ballot can be
categorized as "spoiled").
If the FairVote organization were more honest
about the importance of
being able to rank multiple candidates at the
same preference level, the
fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
push IRV fans into
becoming STAR fans.
History: Interestingly the primary financial
backer behind STAR voting
started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
about 20 years ago a
friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
from the Eugene newspaper
in which that person, the son of a university
president there, was
promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend
in Eugene had heard me
promoting to her and other friends in Eugene
what are now called "ranked
choice ballots." Back then I lived in
Corvallis, but traveled to
dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
some people in Eugene
thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
"order-of-preference
ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
where IRV was adopted
later after I moved away.
My opposition is against the misinformation
about so-called "overvotes."
I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
push IRV through the
Oregon legislature.
For about two decades I've been offering
constructive criticism to IRV
fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
suggestions are regarded as not
important enough for them to seriously consider.
I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
the unfair results of
IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
election in Alaska.
Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm
promoting the idea of adopting
IRV and then, later, improving the counting
software.
That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
eliminating "pairwise
losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
aware that this refinement
will take longer to remedy compared to
correctly counting overvotes.
In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
criticize IRV as being
vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
this effect will
disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
candidates are eliminated when
they occur.
So I find myself attacking misrepresentations
-- basically "white lies"
-- from both the FairVote organization and the
fans of STAR voting (who
loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
Coalition), both of whom are
well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
Science Foundation also
promotes misrepresentations.
To repeat, I'm not attacking the
organizations. I'm attacking their
misrepresentations.
I realize that sometimes those organizations
are trying to keep things
simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
those simplifications
become oversimplifications and
misrepresentations.
It's important to understand that the fans of
STAR voting wouldn't be
getting so many signatures on their current
statewide petition to adopt
STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
FairVote had not been so
adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
enough signatures on their
petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
elections if they hadn't
co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as
a "better kind of ranked
choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
petition-based referendum has
already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
ballot.
To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
STAR voting; rather I'm
opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
statewide ranked choice ballot
initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They
are doing this by pushing
a separate statewide STAR petition.
That's a misrepresentation because they
criticize ranked choice voting
as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
the already-scheduled
November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
"overvotes" so that the
wording is compatible with future software.
FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
countable has contributed to
this attack against IRV.
Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
promoting ranked choice
ballots for three decades, although previously
under the names
"order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3
ballots."
Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
mayoral election and STV
for city council elections. (In spite of
opposition from a fan of STAR
voting who was on the charter amendment
committee.)
And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
ranked-choice-voting
referendum that will appear statewide on the
November ballot -- with no
mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
details, because of my
influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
against this bill.)
The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
STAR fans, and the
Election Science Foundation is undermining
support for Portland's
reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
choice ballots for electing
our governor and our members of Congress.
I'm not intending to suggest there is any
conspiracy between the
organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of
the donations going to
these organizations would decline if they were
to increase cooperation
and avoid misrepresentation.
I continue to believe that the Oregon
legislature being the first state
legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
to adopt ranked choice
ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
beneficial tipping point
for civilization! (Other states that have
adopted ranked choice voting
have had to do it by gathering signatures on
petitions.)
My anger is directed at the people who
undermine this progress toward
adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
software.
That better software will correctly count
mythical "overvotes."
And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
(independence of
irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
criticized as either
Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
failures.
My request to all election-method reform
organizations and individuals
is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
least to Oregon voters, so
the November 2024 ranked choice voting
referendum passes with support
from a majority of Oregon voters.
To everyone still reading this far, thank you
for reading my rant.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
exist.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman
The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
Center is an independent entity
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
Resource Center RCVRC is not
officially(!) affiliated with FairVote.
Then why does RCVRC have the same
misunderstanding that the leader of
the FairVote organization has been
Especially, I'd like to understand why
RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than
ignoring the remaining rankings!
That skipping option works in Australia
where a voter hand-writes a
number next to each candidate's name.
(They don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is
just one box for each candidate.)
But it doesn't make sense here in the
U.S. where we mark ovals in
"choice" columns. And where ballot real
estate is very important.
(In fact, the upcoming statewide
referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause
Oregon ballots to require more
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website --
RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any
ballot where you mark more than
one candidate for the same rank – in
other words, if you fill in more
than one oval in the same column."
Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
correctly count those marks?
(Just pair up equivalent ballots and
allocate those "paired" ballots in
equal numbers to those same-ranked
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:22 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...so you think that the Republicans wanting to ban RCV has nothing to do
> with their being on the wrong end of violations of FairVote's promise about
> RCV.
>
> When it was Republicans' 2nd choice that was no longer there when they
> needed to transfer to it?
>
> Yes obviously both of the right-wings of theRepublocratic party don't want
> electoral-reform, but the Republicans have seen the promise violated in
> their disfavor every time, giving them particularly obvious immediate
> incentive to ban RCV.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:57 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> They're moving to ban RCV because they oppose democracy in general...not
>> because FairVote or anyone else misled them. Do you really think Rudy
>> Giuliani cares about Rob Richie? I don't.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:46 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:27 PM Michael Garman <
>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>>
>>>> What evidence have you got?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there
>>> have been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they
>>> found out that they'd been lied to.
>>>
>>> Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
>>> surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
>>> different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
>>>
>>> So I should bring you a list of their names?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of
>>> FairVote's promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in
>>> general. Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>>>>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
>>>>>> confidence!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
>>>>> FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
>>>>> confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "a fair number of repeals of RCV"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters
>>>>>> last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that
>>>>>>>> includes winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are
>>>>>>>> massive improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who
>>>>>>> found out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many
>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people
>>>>>>> find out that it isn't what it was sold as.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform
>>>>>>> in general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal,
>>>>>>> etc.,that's a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
>>>>>>>> primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
>>>>>>>> the ballot. I hope it wins!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
>>>>>>>> destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
>>>>>>> As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
>>>>>>> destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
>>>>>>> electoral-reform itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
>>>>>>> FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
>>>>>>> rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
>>>>>>> know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
>>>>>>> progreess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces
>>>>>>>> FPTP with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike
>>>>>>>> the fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
>>>>>>> There other other words for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a
>>>>>>>>>> lie."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording
>>>>>>>>> & imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
>>>>>>>>>> chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has
>>>>>>>>> set electoral-reform back decades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and sowing division within the limited base of support
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie
>>>>>>>>>>> is common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
>>>>>>>>>>> years, by various members of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new
>>>>>>>>>>>> people to support our cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
>>>>>>>>>>> fraud-supported "cause".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> passage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As it's written, that passage is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language you cite. Satisfied?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> !!! You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s how it works :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their next choice."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > " RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops! Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported claim was !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the electoral-reform community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn’t be supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying to sell something is called fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like that when they find out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My response to Michael's second paragraph below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is admittedly a "rant"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's intended to reveal insights about what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially in Oregon. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, what I've written in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael's second paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not directed at Michael.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for taking time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educate me about the lack of official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration between RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping NYC to adopt ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group of election-method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing STAR voting, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of financial assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that current versions of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software do not allow giving the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference level to two or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates. They push STAR voting by saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR ballots do allow this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" in real IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections as evidence of the importance of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue (even though an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overvote is just one way in which a ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballot can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> categorized as "spoiled").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the FairVote organization were more honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to rank multiple candidates at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same preference level, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV fans into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becoming STAR fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History: Interestingly the primary financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backer behind STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 20 years ago a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Eugene newspaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which that person, the son of a university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> president there, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Eugene had heard me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are now called "ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots." Back then I lived in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corvallis, but traveled to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where IRV was adopted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later after I moved away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opposition is against the misinformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about so-called "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon legislature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For about two decades I've been offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive criticism to IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions are regarded as not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unfair results of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election in Alaska.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting the idea of adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV and then, later, improving the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating "pairwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware that this refinement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take longer to remedy compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly counting overvotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize IRV as being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates are eliminated when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- basically "white lies"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- from both the FairVote organization and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting (who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coalition), both of whom are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science Foundation also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, I'm not attacking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations. I'm attacking their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize that sometimes those organizations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to keep things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become oversimplifications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's important to understand that the fans of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting so many signatures on their current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide petition to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote had not been so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough signatures on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "better kind of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition-based referendum has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting; rather I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide ranked choice ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing this by pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a misrepresentation because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the already-scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes" so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording is compatible with future software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countable has contributed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this attack against IRV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for three decades, although previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mayoral election and STV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for city council elections. (In spite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition from a fan of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting who was on the charter amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked-choice-voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum that will appear statewide on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November ballot -- with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, because of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against this bill.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR fans, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election Science Foundation is undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support for Portland's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots for electing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our governor and our members of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not intending to suggest there is any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the donations going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these organizations would decline if they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to increase cooperation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and avoid misrepresentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that the Oregon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature being the first state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial tipping point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for civilization! (Other states that have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had to do it by gathering signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petitions.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My anger is directed at the people who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermine this progress toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That better software will correctly count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mythical "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (independence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticized as either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My request to all election-method reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations and individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least to Oregon voters, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the November 2024 ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum passes with support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone still reading this far, thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading my rant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <electionmethods@votefair.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Center is an independent entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Ranked Choice Voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Resource Center RCVRC is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially(!) affiliated with FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Then why does RCVRC have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that the leader of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the FairVote organization has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing for decades?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Especially, I'd like to understand why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Oregon election officials the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > recommended option. That's worse than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the remaining rankings!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That skipping option works in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where a voter hand-writes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > number next to each candidate's name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (They don't have to worry about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "ballot real estate" because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just one box for each candidate.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > But it doesn't make sense here in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. where we mark ovals in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "choice" columns. And where ballot real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estate is very important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (In fact, the upcoming statewide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > just a limited number of contests because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election officials were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > concerned that adopting it would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon ballots to require more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one sheet of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I see that your website --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > elections "The scanner will reject any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot where you mark more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > one candidate for the same rank – in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, if you fill in more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one oval in the same column."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly count those marks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (Just pair up equivalent ballots and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate those "paired" ballots in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > equal numbers to those same-ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 4:43 AM
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away from
Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have been
a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away from
Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have been
a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
MG
Michael Garman
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 4:44 AM
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [Quote]
> Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
> [/Quote]
>
> Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
> from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>
> ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
> been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
> Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 4:45 AM
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
Not what I heard, but yes I'll post a source on that.
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> And Burlington undid their repeal.
>
> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
>
Not what I heard, but yes I'll post a source on that.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [Quote]
>> Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
>> [/Quote]
>>
>> Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
>> from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>>
>> ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
>> been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
>> Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>>
>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Tue, Dec 19, 2023 8:53 AM
Garman says:
"And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
Implementations rejected
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
with only two rankings[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5)
were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida, Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana, Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland, Minnesota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota, and Wisconsin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was implemented
and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan following the election
of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254
[255]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255
More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington (2006–2009);[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6
Burlington,
Vermont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont (2005–2010);[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7
and Aspen, Colorado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado
(2007–2010).[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8
It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256
[257]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257
Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
Garman says:
"And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
Implementations rejected
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
with only two rankings[5]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5>)
were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida>, Indiana
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana>, Maryland
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland>, Minnesota
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota>, and Wisconsin
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin>. In the 1970s, it was implemented
and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan> following the election
of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254>
[255]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255>
More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington> (2006–2009);[6]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6>
Burlington,
Vermont <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont> (2005–2010);[7]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7>
and Aspen, Colorado <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado>
(2007–2010).[8]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8>
It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256>
[257]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257>
Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> And Burlington undid their repeal.
>
> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [Quote]
>> Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
>> [/Quote]
>>
>> Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
>> from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>>
>> ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
>> been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
>> Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>>
>
MG
Michael Garman
Tue, Dec 19, 2023 1:42 PM
Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so — what
one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will stand
corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated by racism
and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in
most cases) would give Black people and communists political power.
I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two
primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Garman says:
"And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
Implementations rejected
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
with only two rankings[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5)
were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida, Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana, Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland, Minnesota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota, and Wisconsin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was
implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan following the
election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254
[255]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255
More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington (2006–2009);[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6 Burlington,
Vermont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont (2005–2010);
[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7
and Aspen, Colorado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado
(2007–2010).[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8
It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256
[257]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257
Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so — what
one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will stand
corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated by racism
and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in
most cases) would give Black people and communists political power.
I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two
primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Garman says:
>
> "And Burlington undid their repeal.
>
> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
>
> Implementations rejected
>
> Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
> with only two rankings[5]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5>)
> were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida>, Indiana
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana>, Maryland
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland>, Minnesota
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota>, and Wisconsin
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin>. In the 1970s, it was
> implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan> following the
> election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254>
> [255]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255>
> More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington> (2006–2009);[6]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6> Burlington,
> Vermont <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont> (2005–2010);
> [7]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7>
> and Aspen, Colorado <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado>
> (2007–2010).[8]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8>
> It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
> to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
> Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256>
> [257]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257>
>
> Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
> which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
> false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
>
> I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> And Burlington undid their repeal.
>>
>> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [Quote]
>>> Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
>>> [/Quote]
>>>
>>> Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
>>> from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>>>
>>> ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
>>> been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
>>> Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>>>
>>
GD
Greg Dennis
Tue, Dec 19, 2023 3:46 PM
Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so —
what one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will stand
corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated by racism
and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in
most cases) would give Black people and communists political power.
I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two
primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Garman says:
"And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
Implementations rejected
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
with only two rankings[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5)
were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida, Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana, Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland, Minnesota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota, and Wisconsin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was
implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan following the
election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254
[255]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255
More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington (2006–2009);[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6 Burlington,
Vermont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont (2005–2010);
[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7
and Aspen, Colorado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado
(2007–2010).[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8
It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256
[257]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257
Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
Aspen is also a debatable case. They invented a
never-before-and-never-since used multiseat method that bore some
resemblance to IRV
<https://fairvote.org/new-variation-of-irv-used-in-aspen-city-council-elections/>,
but it wasn't IRV as we know it.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 8:43 AM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so —
> what one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will stand
> corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated by racism
> and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in
> most cases) would give Black people and communists political power.
>
> I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
>
> Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two
> primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Garman says:
>>
>> "And Burlington undid their repeal.
>>
>> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
>>
>> Implementations rejected
>>
>> Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
>> with only two rankings[5]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5>)
>> were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida>, Indiana
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana>, Maryland
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland>, Minnesota
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota>, and Wisconsin
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin>. In the 1970s, it was
>> implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan> following the
>> election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254>
>> [255]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255>
>> More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington> (2006–2009);[6]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6> Burlington,
>> Vermont <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont> (2005–2010);
>> [7]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7>
>> and Aspen, Colorado <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado>
>> (2007–2010).[8]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8>
>> It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
>> to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
>> Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256>
>> [257]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257>
>>
>> Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
>> which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
>> false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
>>
>> I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> And Burlington undid their repeal.
>>>
>>> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Quote]
>>>> Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
>>>> [/Quote]
>>>>
>>>> Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
>>>> from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>>>>
>>>> ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
>>>> been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
>>>> Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>>>>
>>> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
--
*Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.835.9161
w :: voterchoicema.org <https://www.voterchoicema.org/>
:: Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/yeson2rcv> and Twitter
<https://twitter.com/yeson2rcv> ::
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Tue, Dec 19, 2023 11:18 PM
Yes, the electoral-reform was electing Socialists & excluded minorities.
But, in current years, Republicans can’t not notice that when a CW is
eliminated, it makes them regret that they didn’t bury their favorite under
their compromise. Hence their desire to ban RCV.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 05:42 Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so —
what one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will stand
corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated by racism
and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in
most cases) would give Black people and communists political power.
I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two
primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Garman says:
"And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
Implementations rejected
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
with only two rankings[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5)
were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida, Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana, Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland, Minnesota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota, and Wisconsin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was
implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan following the
election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254
[255]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255
More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington (2006–2009);[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6 Burlington,
Vermont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont (2005–2010);
[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7
and Aspen, Colorado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado
(2007–2010).[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8
It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256
[257]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257
Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
And Burlington undid their repeal.
No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
[Quote]
Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
[/Quote]
Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
Yes, the electoral-reform was electing Socialists & excluded minorities.
But, in current years, Republicans can’t not notice that when a CW is
eliminated, it makes them regret that they didn’t bury their favorite under
their compromise. Hence their desire to ban RCV.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 05:42 Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
wrote:
> Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so —
> what one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will stand
> corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated by racism
> and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in
> most cases) would give Black people and communists political power.
>
> I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
>
> Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two
> primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Garman says:
>>
>> "And Burlington undid their repeal.
>>
>> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
>>
>> Implementations rejected
>>
>> Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting (typically
>> with only two rankings[5]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5>)
>> were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida>, Indiana
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana>, Maryland
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland>, Minnesota
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota>, and Wisconsin
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin>. In the 1970s, it was
>> implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan> following the
>> election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.[254]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254>
>> [255]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255>
>> More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington> (2006–2009);[6]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6> Burlington,
>> Vermont <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont> (2005–2010);
>> [7]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7>
>> and Aspen, Colorado <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado>
>> (2007–2010).[8]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8>
>> It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted
>> to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from
>> Michigan’s state legislature.[256]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256>
>> [257]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257>
>>
>> Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the conference in
>> which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making the
>> false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
>>
>> I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> And Burlington undid their repeal.
>>>
>>> No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Quote]
>>>> Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
>>>> [/Quote]
>>>>
>>>> Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated & transfers went away
>>>> from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>>>>
>>>> ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told that there have
>>>> been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When people expect RCV to act like
>>>> Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>>>>
>>>
