Empathy List Archives

election-methods@mailman.electorama.com

Technical discussion of election methods

View all threads

Re: [EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

Michael Ossipoff

Mon, Dec 18, 2023 1:01 AM

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

 "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

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 >> >

Michael Garman

Mon, Dec 18, 2023 1:03 AM

" 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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

> " 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. 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 >>> >>

Michael Ossipoff

Mon, Dec 18, 2023 1:04 AM

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:01 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote: