MO
Michael Ossipoff
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 3:08 AM
Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
& friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
something that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that FairVote
knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense for
the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated per
round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second choice
if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate people's
cognitive abilities.
I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and everyone
understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct. I'm not
going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have little
sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate is
eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still in
the running.”
Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
qualification.
If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
creatively modify it) is true.
You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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:
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion —
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most powerful
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion —
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 is
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
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 for
Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than ignoring
That skipping option works in Australia where a
number next to each candidate's name. (They
don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just one
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S. where
"choice" columns. And where ballot real estate
(In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org --
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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
(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> for list info
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
>
> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
& friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>
> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
>> something that actually says what you say he means?
>>
>> No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that FairVote
>> knows to be false.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense for
>>> the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
>>> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>>>
>>> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated per
>>> round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second choice
>>> if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate people's
>>> cognitive abilities.
>>>
>>> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and everyone
>>> understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct. I'm not
>>> going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have little
>>> sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate is
>>>>> eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still in
>>>>> the running.”
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
>>>> qualification.
>>>>
>>>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
>>>> because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
>>>> creatively modify it) is true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
>>>>> sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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 3:11 AM
If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
website to make the wording clearer.
You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
& friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
something that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that FairVote
knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense for
the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
people's cognitive abilities.
I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate is
eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still in
the running.”
Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
qualification.
If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
creatively modify it) is true.
You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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:
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion —
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 is
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
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 for
Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than ignoring
That skipping option works in Australia where a
number next to each candidate's name. (They
don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just one
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
"choice" columns. And where ballot real estate
(In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org
-- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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
(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> for list info
If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
website to make the wording clearer.
You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>>
>
> As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
> clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
>
> ..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
> something that isn't true.
>
>
>>
>> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
>> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>>
>
> :-D
>
> So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
> as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
> & friends? :-D
>
> So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
>
>
>> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>>
>
> At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>
>>
>> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
>>> something that actually says what you say he means?
>>>
>>> No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that FairVote
>>> knows to be false.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense for
>>>> the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
>>>> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
>>>> per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
>>>> choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
>>>> people's cognitive abilities.
>>>>
>>>> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
>>>> everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
>>>> I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
>>>> little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate is
>>>>>> eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still in
>>>>>> the running.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
>>>>> qualification.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
>>>>> because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
>>>>> creatively modify it) is true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
>>>>>> sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>>>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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 3:18 AM
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion —
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most powerful
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion —
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 is
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
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 for
Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than ignoring
That skipping option works in Australia where a
number next to each candidate's name. (They
don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just one
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S. where
"choice" columns. And where ballot real estate
(In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org --
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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
(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> for list info
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 3:21 AM
Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV. That's hardly
"destroying public confidence." It's record public confidence!
"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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion —
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 is
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
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 for
Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than ignoring
That skipping option works in Australia where a
number next to each candidate's name. (They
don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just one
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
"choice" columns. And where ballot real estate
(In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org
-- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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
(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> for list info
Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV. That's hardly
"destroying public confidence." It's record public confidence!
"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 3:21 AM
If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
website to make the wording clearer.
What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's because
you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
& friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
something that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
FairVote knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
people's cognitive abilities.
I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate
is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still
in the running.”
Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
qualification.
If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
creatively modify it) is true.
You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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:
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
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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 is
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
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 for
Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
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
number next to each candidate's name. (They
don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just one
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
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org
-- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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> for list info
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:11 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
> website to make the wording clearer.
>
What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's because
you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
>
> You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
> something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
> rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
> that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
>
So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their wording
>> clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
>>
>> ..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
>> something that isn't true.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
>>> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>>>
>>
>> :-D
>>
>> So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such thing
>> as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to Trump
>> & friends? :-D
>>
>> So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
>>
>>
>>> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>>>
>>
>> At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>>
>>>
>>> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
>>>> something that actually says what you say he means?
>>>>
>>>> No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
>>>> FairVote knows to be false.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
>>>>> for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
>>>>> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
>>>>> per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
>>>>> choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
>>>>> people's cognitive abilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
>>>>> everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
>>>>> I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
>>>>> little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate
>>>>>>> is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still
>>>>>>> in the running.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
>>>>>> qualification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
>>>>>> because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
>>>>>> creatively modify it) is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
>>>>>>> sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>>>>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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 3:23 AM
What the fuck do you want me to do? I have no connection to FairVote.
Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
their claims are not fraudulent -- supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
rocket science.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
website to make the wording clearer.
What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's because
you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their
wording clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such
thing as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to
Trump & friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
something that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
FairVote knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
people's cognitive abilities.
I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate
is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still
in the running.”
Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
qualification.
If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
creatively modify it) is true.
You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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:
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
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
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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
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
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
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org
-- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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
What the fuck do you want me to do? I have no connection to FairVote.
Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
their claims are not fraudulent -- supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
rocket science.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:11 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
>> website to make the wording clearer.
>>
>
> What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's because
> you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
>
>>
>> You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
>> something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
>> rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
>> that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
>>
>
> So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their
>>> wording clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
>>>
>>> ..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
>>> something that isn't true.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
>>>> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> :-D
>>>
>>> So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such
>>> thing as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to
>>> Trump & friends? :-D
>>>
>>> So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
>>>>> something that actually says what you say he means?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
>>>>> FairVote knows to be false.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
>>>>>> for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
>>>>>> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
>>>>>> per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
>>>>>> choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
>>>>>> people's cognitive abilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
>>>>>> everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
>>>>>> I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
>>>>>> little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate
>>>>>>>> is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still
>>>>>>>> in the running.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
>>>>>>> qualification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How about
>>>>>>> because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as you
>>>>>>> creatively modify it) is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
>>>>>>>> sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>>>>>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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 3:25 AM
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
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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 is
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
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 for
Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
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
number next to each candidate's name. (They
don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just one
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
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org
-- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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> for list info
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 3:27 AM
...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 over the ramblings of one disingenuous man on an
email list.
Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
You're the one who brought confidence into the conversation!
In any case, it's clear to me that neither of us is going to change the
other's mind. I believe this conversation has run its course. Good night.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
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:
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
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
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck
evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion
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
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
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
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org
-- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any ballot
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
>> ...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 over the ramblings of one disingenuous man on an
email list.
>> Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
You're the one who brought confidence into the conversation!
In any case, it's clear to me that neither of us is going to change the
other's mind. I believe this conversation has run its course. Good night.
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 3:32 AM
What the fuck do you want me to do?
How about what I suggested.Write to them with your suggestion that they
clarify their wording.
I have no connection to FairVote.
...& you know that you'd be ignored if you wrote to them & suggested that
they clarify their wording. You know that they won't do so, because it
benefits them for people to believe the lie.
Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
their claims are not fraudulent -- supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
rocket science.
The claims are fraudulent. I'm referring to the lie that I quoted. Use of
a lie to sell something is fraud. You say it's just a misunderstanding of
wording that could be clearer. So it's just an accidental oversight that
the wording implies something false? Why don't they change it? They've
been criticized for it for a long time.
Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
they've been asked to & have agreed to? How about because it's an
intentional lie.
In a debate with Clay Shentrup, Aaron Hamiln & others, Richie never made
that particular claim. Why ever not? Howabout because he knew that he
couldn't get away with that lie among that company.
If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
website to make the wording clearer.
What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's
because you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their
wording clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such
thing as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to
Trump & friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
something that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
FairVote knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
people's cognitive abilities.
I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate
is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still
in the running.”
Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
qualification.
If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How
about because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as
you creatively modify it) is true.
You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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:
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
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
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
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:23 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> What the fuck do you want me to do?
>
How about what I suggested.Write to them with your suggestion that they
clarify their wording.
> I have no connection to FairVote.
>
...& you know that you'd be ignored if you wrote to them & suggested that
they clarify their wording. You know that they won't do so, because it
benefits them for people to believe the lie.
>
> Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
> their claims are not fraudulent -- supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
> rocket science.
>
The claims are fraudulent. I'm referring to the lie that I quoted. Use of
a lie to sell something is fraud. You say it's just a misunderstanding of
wording that could be clearer. So it's just an accidental oversight that
the wording implies something false? Why don't they change it? They've
been criticized for it for a long time.
Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
they've been asked to & have agreed to? How about because it's an
intentional lie.
In a debate with Clay Shentrup, Aaron Hamiln & others, Richie never made
that particular claim. Why ever not? Howabout because he knew that he
couldn't get away with that lie among that company.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:11 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
>>> website to make the wording clearer.
>>>
>>
>> What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's
>> because you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
>>
>>>
>>> You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
>>> something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
>>> rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
>>> that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
>>>
>>
>> So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's] rhetoric?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their
>>>> wording clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
>>>>
>>>> ..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
>>>> something that isn't true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
>>>>> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :-D
>>>>
>>>> So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such
>>>> thing as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to
>>>> Trump & friends? :-D
>>>>
>>>> So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
>>>>>> something that actually says what you say he means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
>>>>>> FairVote knows to be false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
>>>>>>> for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
>>>>>>> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is eliminated
>>>>>>> per round will think that their vote will somehow count for their second
>>>>>>> choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you underestimate
>>>>>>> people's cognitive abilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
>>>>>>> everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
>>>>>>> I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
>>>>>>> little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one candidate
>>>>>>>>> is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next choice still
>>>>>>>>> in the running.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some unstated
>>>>>>>> qualification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How
>>>>>>>> about because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as
>>>>>>>> you creatively modify it) is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics and
>>>>>>>>> sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>>>>>>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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 3:33 AM
Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
they've been asked to & have agreed to? How about because it's an
intentional lie.
Wow! That's big. I'd be curious to learn more about it. Do you have a
source?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:32 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
What the fuck do you want me to do?
How about what I suggested.Write to them with your suggestion that they
clarify their wording.
I have no connection to FairVote.
...& you know that you'd be ignored if you wrote to them & suggested that
they clarify their wording. You know that they won't do so, because it
benefits them for people to believe the lie.
Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
their claims are not fraudulent -- supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
rocket science.
The claims are fraudulent. I'm referring to the lie that I quoted. Use of
a lie to sell something is fraud. You say it's just a misunderstanding of
wording that could be clearer. So it's just an accidental oversight that
the wording implies something false? Why don't they change it? They've
been criticized for it for a long time.
Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
they've been asked to & have agreed to? How about because it's an
intentional lie.
In a debate with Clay Shentrup, Aaron Hamiln & others, Richie never made
that particular claim. Why ever not? Howabout because he knew that he
couldn't get away with that lie among that company.
If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
website to make the wording clearer.
What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's
because you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's]
rhetoric?
Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their
wording clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
something that isn't true.
You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
:-D
So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such
thing as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to
Trump & friends? :-D
So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
something that actually says what you say he means?
No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
FairVote knows to be false.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
Do you really think people who know that one candidate is
eliminated per round will think that their vote will somehow count for
their second choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you
underestimate people's cognitive abilities.
I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one
candidate is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next
choice still in the running.”
Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some
unstated qualification.
If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How
about because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as
you creatively modify it) is true.
You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
and sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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:
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
>> Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
they've been asked to & have agreed to? How about because it's an
intentional lie.
Wow! That's big. I'd be curious to learn more about it. Do you have a
source?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:32 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:23 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> What the fuck do you want me to do?
>>
>
> How about what I suggested.Write to them with your suggestion that they
> clarify their wording.
>
>> I have no connection to FairVote.
>>
>
> ...& you know that you'd be ignored if you wrote to them & suggested that
> they clarify their wording. You know that they won't do so, because it
> benefits them for people to believe the lie.
>
>>
>> Attacking proponents of electoral reform as messengers of fraud -- when
>> their claims are not fraudulent -- supports Trump's rhetoric. This isn't
>> rocket science.
>>
>
> The claims are fraudulent. I'm referring to the lie that I quoted. Use of
> a lie to sell something is fraud. You say it's just a misunderstanding of
> wording that could be clearer. So it's just an accidental oversight that
> the wording implies something false? Why don't they change it? They've
> been criticized for it for a long time.
>
> Confronted with that mis-statement, FairVote once agreed to change the
> wording....& then evidently decided not to. Whyi? If they don't mean for it
> to be interpreted as written, then whyi don't they clarify it, after
> they've been asked to & have agreed to? How about because it's an
> intentional lie.
>
> In a debate with Clay Shentrup, Aaron Hamiln & others, Richie never made
> that particular claim. Why ever not? Howabout because he knew that he
> couldn't get away with that lie among that company.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:11 PM Michael Garman <
>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I were in charge of FairVote, I'd tell the intern in charge of the
>>>> website to make the wording clearer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's stopping you from advising them anyway? Let me guess: It's
>>> because you know that they wouldn't consider telling the truth.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're being obtuse again. My point is not that because Trump says
>>>> something it can never be true but instead that when you lean into his
>>>> rhetoric around elections it gives more ammunition to his cronies who use
>>>> that same rhetoric for nefarious purposes. That's bad!
>>>>
>>>
>>> So anyone to points to fraud anywhere is "leaning into [Trump's]
>>> rhetoric?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, it could be clearer -- but it. is. not. a. lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, why don't you suggest to FairVote that they make their
>>>>> wording clearer, so it won't imply something that isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>> ..because you know that they won't. ...because they want to imply
>>>>> something that isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know who loves to traffic in the rhetoric of "fraud" and "lies"
>>>>>> surrounding elections? Donald Trump and his crowd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> So if Trump speaks of any fraud or lies, then there can be no such
>>>>> thing as fraud or lies? ...not even the many ones that are attributed to
>>>>> Trump & friends? :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> So, tell FairVote not to be so much like Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you want to give them any more ammunition, Michael?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At least you might want to ask FairVote to not emulate them so much.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And FYI Rob Richie is no longer in charge of FairVote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:59 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine, then is Richie willing to change his promotional wording to
>>>>>>> something that actually says what you say he means?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he won't. ...because the intent is to imply something that
>>>>>>> FairVote knows to be false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:54 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a ridiculous argument. You're just being deliberately dense
>>>>>>>> for the sake of misconstruing the arguments made by the electoral reform
>>>>>>>> proponents with the most political power in order to undermine their cause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really think people who know that one candidate is
>>>>>>>> eliminated per round will think that their vote will somehow count for
>>>>>>>> their second choice if that person is eliminated first? If so, you
>>>>>>>> underestimate people's cognitive abilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've explained ranked choice voting to thousands of people, and
>>>>>>>> everyone understands that my reading of the sentence you cited is correct.
>>>>>>>> I'm not going to tell you to touch grass, but I am saying you seem to have
>>>>>>>> little sense of how actual humans process information about RCV.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:48 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope! Not a lie. Any reasonable person, knowing that one
>>>>>>>>>> candidate is eliminated in each round, would read “next choice” as “next
>>>>>>>>>> choice still in the running.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong. "Next choice" means next choice. ...not with some
>>>>>>>>> unstated qualification.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that's what FairVote meant, then why didn't he say it? How
>>>>>>>>> about because they wanted to imply that the statement, as written (not as
>>>>>>>>> you creatively modify it) is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re deliberately choosing an uncharitable interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>>>>>>>>>> and sowing division within the limited base of support for a movement whose
>>>>>>>>>> principal challenge is convincing new people to support our 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
