MG
Michael Garman
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 3:34 AM
...& 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.
Most major organizations won't do much if a random person emails them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:33 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
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
The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
Center is an independent entity
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
affiliated with FairVote.
Then why does RCVRC have the same
misunderstanding that the leader of
the FairVote organization has been pushing
Especially, I'd like to understand why
RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than
ignoring the remaining rankings!
That skipping option works in Australia
where a voter hand-writes a
number next to each candidate's name.
(They don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just
one box for each candidate.)
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
"choice" columns. And where ballot real
estate is very important.
(In fact, the upcoming statewide
referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause
Oregon ballots to require more
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website --
RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any
ballot where you mark more than
one candidate for the same rank – in
other words, if you fill in more
than one oval in the same column."
Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
correctly count those marks?
(Just pair up equivalent ballots and
allocate those "paired" ballots in
equal numbers to those same-ranked
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>> ...& 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.
Most major organizations won't do much if a random person emails them.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:33 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> >> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 3:37 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?
Yes, & I'll find it, though I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading for
you.
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
The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
Center is an independent entity
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
affiliated with FairVote.
Then why does RCVRC have the same
misunderstanding that the leader of
the FairVote organization has been pushing
Especially, I'd like to understand why
RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than
ignoring the remaining rankings!
That skipping option works in Australia
where a voter hand-writes a
number next to each candidate's name.
(They don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is just
one box for each candidate.)
But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
"choice" columns. And where ballot real
estate is very important.
(In fact, the upcoming statewide
referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause
Oregon ballots to require more
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website --
RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any
ballot where you mark more than
one candidate for the same rank – in
other words, if you fill in more
than one oval in the same column."
Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
correctly count those marks?
(Just pair up equivalent ballots and
allocate those "paired" ballots in
equal numbers to those same-ranked
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:34 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
Yes, & I'll find it, though I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading for
you.
>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MG
Michael Garman
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 3:38 AM
" I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading for you."
If you're going to make claims, the onus is on you to substantiate them :)
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:37 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
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?
Yes, & I'll find it, though I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading
for you.
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
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
exist.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman
The Ranked Choice Voting Resource
Center is an independent entity
unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that
Resource Center RCVRC is not
officially(!) affiliated with FairVote.
Then why does RCVRC have the same
misunderstanding that the leader of
the FairVote organization has been
Especially, I'd like to understand why
RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
Oregon election officials the idea that
skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
recommended option. That's worse than
ignoring the remaining rankings!
That skipping option works in Australia
where a voter hand-writes a
number next to each candidate's name.
(They don't have to worry about
"ballot real estate" because there is
just one box for each candidate.)
But it doesn't make sense here in the
U.S. where we mark ovals in
"choice" columns. And where ballot real
estate is very important.
(In fact, the upcoming statewide
referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
just a limited number of contests because
concerned that adopting it would cause
Oregon ballots to require more
than one sheet of paper.)
I see that your website --
RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
elections "The scanner will reject any
ballot where you mark more than
one candidate for the same rank – in
other words, if you fill in more
than one oval in the same column."
Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
correctly count those marks?
(Just pair up equivalent ballots and
allocate those "paired" ballots in
equal numbers to those same-ranked
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
" I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading for you."
If you're going to make claims, the onus is on you to substantiate them :)
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:34 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> >> 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?
>>
>
> Yes, & I'll find it, though I shouldn't have to keep doing your reading
> for you.
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 3:46 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
I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there have
been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
out that they'd been lied to.
Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
So I should bring you a list of their names?
:-)
The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of FairVote's
promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in general.
Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
confidence!
Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
"a fair number of repeals of RCV"
One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
year.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who found
out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many others.
...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people find
out that it isn't what it was sold as.
...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform in
general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal, etc.,that's
a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
the ballot. I hope it wins!
You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
electoral-reform itself.
The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
progreess.
The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces FPTP
with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike the
fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
There other other words for it.
Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording &
imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has set
electoral-reform back decades.
You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
and sowing division within the limited base of support
Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie is
common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
years, by various members of the community.
for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new people
to support our cause.
People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
fraud-supported "cause".
Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
eliminated."
...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
As it's written, that passage is a lie.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
language you cite. Satisfied?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they are
my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my second
choice
No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops !!!
You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
.
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
their next choice."
That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
Voting".
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
your claim…
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
" RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
“…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have
already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an example
here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported
claim was !
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
electoral-reform community.
The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
incorrect statement.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
You evidently think fraud is good.
I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
…intentional lying to sell a product.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
whatsoever.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
(STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
FairVote.
Thus, RCV is a fraud.
Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t
be supported.
Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
advocate for it.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
Lying to sell something is called fraud.
RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
like that when they find out.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the VoteFair
guy electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
My response to Michael's second paragraph below is
admittedly a "rant"
that's intended to reveal insights about what's
going on under the
surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
especially in Oregon. In
other words, what I've written in response to
Michael's second paragraph
is not directed at Michael.
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
RCVRC.
To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and
for taking time to
educate me about the lack of official
collaboration between RCVRC and
FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping
NYC to adopt ranked
choice ballots!
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
of a conspiracy instead of
offering constructive criticism to the most
powerful election reformers
out there is going to ensure that we remain
stuck with FPTP. You have no
evidence for your claims of any kind of
collusion — because it doesn’t
For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
of election-method
reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
pushing STAR voting, with
lots of financial assistance.
One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
current versions of IRV
software do not allow giving the same preference
level to two or more
candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR
ballots do allow this
kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
ballots" in real IRV
elections as evidence of the importance of this
issue (even though an
overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice
ballot can be
categorized as "spoiled").
If the FairVote organization were more honest
about the importance of
being able to rank multiple candidates at the same
preference level, the
fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
push IRV fans into
becoming STAR fans.
History: Interestingly the primary financial
backer behind STAR voting
started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
about 20 years ago a
friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping from
the Eugene newspaper
in which that person, the son of a university
president there, was
promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in
Eugene had heard me
promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what
are now called "ranked
choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis,
but traveled to
dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that some
people in Eugene
thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
"order-of-preference
ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
where IRV was adopted
later after I moved away.
My opposition is against the misinformation about
so-called "overvotes."
I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
push IRV through the
Oregon legislature.
For about two decades I've been offering
constructive criticism to IRV
fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
suggestions are regarded as not
important enough for them to seriously consider.
I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
the unfair results of
IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
election in Alaska.
Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
the idea of adopting
IRV and then, later, improving the counting
software.
That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
eliminating "pairwise
losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
aware that this refinement
will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
counting overvotes.
In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
criticize IRV as being
vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
this effect will
disappear from IRV when pairwise losing candidates
are eliminated when
they occur.
So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
basically "white lies"
-- from both the FairVote organization and the
fans of STAR voting (who
loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
Coalition), both of whom are
well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
Science Foundation also
promotes misrepresentations.
To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
I'm attacking their
misrepresentations.
I realize that sometimes those organizations are
trying to keep things
simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
those simplifications
become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
It's important to understand that the fans of STAR
voting wouldn't be
getting so many signatures on their current
statewide petition to adopt
STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
FairVote had not been so
adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
enough signatures on their
petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene elections
if they hadn't
co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
"better kind of ranked
choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
petition-based referendum has
already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
ballot.
To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
STAR voting; rather I'm
opposed to STAR fans trying to block the statewide
ranked choice ballot
initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are
doing this by pushing
a separate statewide STAR petition.
That's a misrepresentation because they criticize
ranked choice voting
as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though the
already-scheduled
November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
"overvotes" so that the
wording is compatible with future software.
FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
countable has contributed to
this attack against IRV.
Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
promoting ranked choice
ballots for three decades, although previously
under the names
"order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."
Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
mayoral election and STV
for city council elections. (In spite of
opposition from a fan of STAR
voting who was on the charter amendment committee.)
And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
ranked-choice-voting
referendum that will appear statewide on the
November ballot -- with no
mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
details, because of my
influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
against this bill.)
The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
STAR fans, and the
Election Science Foundation is undermining support
for Portland's
reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
choice ballots for electing
our governor and our members of Congress.
I'm not intending to suggest there is any
conspiracy between the
organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the
donations going to
these organizations would decline if they were to
increase cooperation
and avoid misrepresentation.
I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature
being the first state
legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters to
adopt ranked choice
ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
beneficial tipping point
for civilization! (Other states that have adopted
ranked choice voting
have had to do it by gathering signatures on
petitions.)
My anger is directed at the people who undermine
this progress toward
adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
software.
That better software will correctly count mythical
"overvotes."
And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
(independence of
irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
criticized as either
Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
failures.
My request to all election-method reform
organizations and individuals
is to please stop the misrepresentations, at least
to Oregon voters, so
the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum
passes with support
from a majority of Oregon voters.
To everyone still reading this far, thank you for
reading my rant.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
letting the perfect be the
enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of
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 10:27 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
> >> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>
> What evidence have you got?
>
> I'm going with the polls that show over 60% of Americans supporting RCV
>
I didn't say that the con hasn't been successful. I said that there have
been plenty of people who were disillusioned & disappointed when they found
out that they'd been lied to.
Now what are you asking for? A list of their names? They comprise a
surprising percentage of people now in other organizations advocating
different methods. It's actually happened a lot.
So I should bring you a list of their names?
:-)
The party that has been on the losing-end of RCV's violation of FairVote's
promise has moved to ban RCV...& with it, alternative voting in general.
Must I prove that to you as well, because you don't read any news?
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:22 PM Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Polls indicate record numbers of Americans support RCV.
>>>
>>
>> ...with many later finding out that they were lied to, & becoming
>> opponents of RCV & proponents of more honestly-proposed methods.
>>
>>
>>> That's hardly "destroying public confidence." It's record public
>>> confidence!
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we've heard of confidence-games & confidence-men.
>>
>> Look at most of the platforms of progressive parties. They repeat
>> FairVote's lie because they believe it. Wonderful that they have that
>> confidence...except that it's confidence in a con.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "a fair number of repeals of RCV"
>>>
>>> One. In Burlington. Which was subsequently reversed by the voters last
>>> year.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:19 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:08 PM Michael Garman <
>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's a curious definition of "wasting everyone's time" that includes
>>>>> winning record numbers of victories for electoral systems that are massive
>>>>> improvements over anything that had been in place beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...& has resulted in lots of disilllusioned former supporters who found
>>>> out that they were lied to. I've talked with some, & there are many others.
>>>>
>>>> ...& has resulted in a fair number of repeals of RCV, when people find
>>>> out that it isn't what it was sold as.
>>>>
>>>> ...thereby discrediting RCV itself, & discrediting electoral-reform in
>>>> general. With all the disillusionment, disappointment, repeal, etc.,that's
>>>> a bizarre notion of progress or accomplishment.
>>>>
>>>> ...success in selling something that doesn't work as advertised.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it's wonderful that two cities use approval -- one for
>>>>> primaries and one for general elections. I think it's neat that STAR is on
>>>>> the ballot. I hope it wins!
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have the attitude of a petulant child who is willing to
>>>>> destroy everything if he can't get exactly what he wants.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I want is honesty. Is that too much to ask,
>>>> As I said, I can't abide dishonesty & I won't support fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Destroy everything? What do you think FairVote is doing, if not
>>>> destroying public respect for & confidence in STE itself, & in
>>>> electoral-reform itself.
>>>>
>>>> The Republicans have been on the wrong end of the violation of
>>>> FairVote's promise, & they've been advocating the banning of
>>>> rank-balloting...sometimes extending that to Approval as well. As you
>>>> know, some states have enacted such bans. Sorry, but I don't call that
>>>> progreess.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that I'm happy whenever a jurisdiction replaces FPTP
>>>>> with a superior alternative. I suggest you take the same view. Unlike the
>>>>> fantasy world of this list, real-life politics calls for pragmatism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pragmatism in the form of supporting fraud? That's not pragmatism.
>>>> There other other words for it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 10:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:58 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Refuting a bad-faith interpretation isn't "weaseling out of a lie."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't refute anything. You merely tried to change the wording &
>>>>>> imply that FairVote meant differently from what it says.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me two viable electoral reform campaigns with any material
>>>>>>> chance of success that aren't focused on ranked choice voting. I'll wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Approval was adopted in Saint Louis, & in a North Dakota community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STAR is on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon for this spring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes, I admit that FairVote has wasted everyone's time, & has set
>>>>>> electoral-reform back decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You’re really not doing anyone any favors by arguing semantics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantics? You're trying to weasel out of a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and sowing division within the limited base of support
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey I'm not sowing division that isn't already there.. That lie is
>>>>>>>> common-knowledge throughout the electoral-reform community, & is much
>>>>>>>> discussed. Its falsity has been pointed out to Richie for the past 35
>>>>>>>> years, by various members of the community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for a movement whose principal challenge is convincing new people
>>>>>>>>> to support our cause.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People are making a sucker's mistake if they support your
>>>>>>>> fraud-supported "cause".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't equate your lie with the electoral-reform cause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FairVote & you didn't say "...if your 2nd choice hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>> eliminated."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...& no, that qualification isn't implied in the quoted passage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As it's written, that passage is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:37 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fine…it counts for your next highest choice still in the
>>>>>>>>>>> running. Which is also a reasonable interpretation of the “next choice”
>>>>>>>>>>> language you cite. Satisfied?
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:35 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:32 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where’s the lie? If I rank Candidate X first (meaning they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my top choice) and they are eliminated, my ballot now counts for my second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, unless your 2nd choice is still there. Oops !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> You & Richie forgot to include the word "Maybe".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s how it works :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their next choice."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the 2nd sentence about RCV at FairVote's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To reach that website, google "FairVote, Ranked-Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:12 PM Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > " RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ossipoff hasn't produced any evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already seen FairVote’s promotional material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. …one of many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim was !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electoral-reform community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone making incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was criticizing fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect be the enemy of the good are the greatest obstacle to any progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (STE) is a fraud. I said that RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted with the intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to help Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonexistent Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully sold to the people of Oregon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is “fraud” because you dislike one of the many organizations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocates…until they found out that they’d been lied to by FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying to sell something is called fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like that when they find out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 Richard, the VoteFair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guy <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My response to Michael's second paragraph below is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly a "rant"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's intended to reveal insights about what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface of election-method reform in the U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially in Oregon. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, what I've written in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael's second paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not directed at Michael.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for taking time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educate me about the lack of official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration between RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NYC to adopt ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election-method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing STAR voting, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of financial assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current versions of IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software do not allow giving the same preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level to two or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots do allow this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" in real IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections as evidence of the importance of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue (even though an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> categorized as "spoiled").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the FairVote organization were more honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to rank multiple candidates at the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference level, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV fans into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becoming STAR fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History: Interestingly the primary financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backer behind STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started out as an IRV fan. I know this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 20 years ago a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Eugene newspaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which that person, the son of a university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> president there, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eugene had heard me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are now called "ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but traveled to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people in Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where IRV was adopted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later after I moved away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opposition is against the misinformation about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push IRV through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon legislature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For about two decades I've been offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructive criticism to IRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions are regarded as not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unfair results of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election in Alaska.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea of adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRV and then, later, improving the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating "pairwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aware that this refinement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take longer to remedy compared to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counting overvotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticize IRV as being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this effect will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are eliminated when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically "white lies"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- from both the FairVote organization and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fans of STAR voting (who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coalition), both of whom are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science Foundation also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm attacking their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize that sometimes those organizations are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to keep things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's important to understand that the fans of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting so many signatures on their current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statewide petition to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote had not been so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough signatures on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene elections
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "better kind of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice voting"). That Eugene-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition-based referendum has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR voting; rather I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the statewide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked choice ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing this by pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a misrepresentation because they criticize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already-scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes" so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording is compatible with future software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countable has contributed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this attack against IRV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for three decades, although previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mayoral election and STV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for city council elections. (In spite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition from a fan of STAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting who was on the charter amendment committee.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked-choice-voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum that will appear statewide on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> November ballot -- with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, because of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against this bill.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STAR fans, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election Science Foundation is undermining support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Portland's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice ballots for electing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our governor and our members of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not intending to suggest there is any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> donations going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these organizations would decline if they were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase cooperation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and avoid misrepresentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the first state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopt ranked choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial tipping point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for civilization! (Other states that have adopted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranked choice voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have had to do it by gathering signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petitions.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My anger is directed at the people who undermine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this progress toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That better software will correctly count mythical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "overvotes."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (independence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticized as either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My request to all election-method reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizations and individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Oregon voters, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes with support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To everyone still reading this far, thank you for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading my rant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RCVRC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letting the perfect be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > offering constructive criticism to the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful election reformers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > out there is going to ensure that we remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with FPTP. You have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > evidence for your claims of any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion — because it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <electionmethods@votefair.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an independent entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ranked Choice Voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affiliated with FairVote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Then why does RCVRC have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that the leader of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the FairVote organization has been pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for decades?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushed onto the Portland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Oregon election officials the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > recommended option. That's worse than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the remaining rankings!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That skipping option works in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where a voter hand-writes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > number next to each candidate's name. (They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have to worry about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "ballot real estate" because there is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one box for each candidate.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we mark ovals in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "choice" columns. And where ballot real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estate is very important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Oregon adopts RCV for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > just a limited number of contests because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election officials were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > concerned that adopting it would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oregon ballots to require more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one sheet of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I see that your website --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your NYC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > elections "The scanner will reject any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot where you mark more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > one candidate for the same rank – in other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, if you fill in more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > than one oval in the same column."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly count those marks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (Just pair up equivalent ballots and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate those "paired" ballots in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > equal numbers to those same-ranked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Fobes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The VoteFair guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RT
Richard, the VoteFair guy
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 6:33 PM
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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.
I agree with Michael Garman that this is not a significant
misrepresentation from FairVote.
In particular, it's not the significant(!) kind of misrepresentation I
had in mind when I started this thread.
Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
FairVote organization are:
-
Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
-
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
popular candidate
-
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
-
Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
are not worth considering
-
Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by
the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
difficult to change to anything better)
-
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts
that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked at)
(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one
of them.)
For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
voting are (off the top of my head):
-
Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)
-
Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
choice ballots)
-
Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice
ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
-
STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
and bottom-rank all other candidates)
-
Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
-
Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
failures (including Condorcet failures)
-
Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
-
STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
-
Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
-
Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
-
The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
that uses ranked choice ballots
-
Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
(I might be forgetting one or two more.)
Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:
- Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method
should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
considered by the voters or elected officials
I'm pleased to learn (from the discussion between the two Michaels) that
Rob Richie is no longer the leader of the FairVote organization. He was
the source of lots of misrepresentation.
About a year or so ago I participated in a three-way Zoom meeting with
Deb Otis who works at the FairVote organization. I was pleased that she
did not make any misrepresentations about IRV or STV.
However, I disagree with her claim that correctly counting overvotes is
not worth the extra effort needed. Besides being an issue about spoiled
ballots, counting "overvotes" also allows a voter to rank their
most-disliked candidate lower than all other candidates when there are
just 6 choice rankings and more than 6 candidates (which affects ballot
real estate, which election officials regard as very important).
Also, I disagree with her claim that the failure in Burlington was
acceptable because it was just one election out of about 400 elections.
(This was before Alaska's special election that also had a Condorcet
failure.)
I'll clarify that I've softened my opinion about Condorcet failures.
I'll accept a few such failures if the election method gains significant
other kinds of advantages.
However, I strongly believe that when IRV eliminations reach the top
three candidates, the presence of a pairwise losing candidate (who would
lose both one-on-one contests against the other two candidates) should
not cause the majority-supported candidate to lose.
Typically I shorten this point by saying that pairwise losing candidates
should be eliminated when they occur. Yet because Michael Ossipoff
likes to jump on wording-based issues, I'll clarify that I really don't
care about the exact order of elimination of the candidates who get
eliminated prior to the top-three round.
Getting back to my main point, my hope is that the people leading the
three main election-method organizations (FairVote, STAR ..., ESF)
recognize that making misrepresentations undermines our goal of ending
"first past the post" (academically known as "plurality voting").
And I'll repeat my specific request to please(!) avoid
misrepresentations that might block the state-legislature-approved(!)
referendum for ranked choice voting that will be on Oregon's 2024
November election ballot.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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 mailto: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 <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: *Michael Ossipoff* <email9648742@gmail.com
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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.
I agree with Michael Garman that this is not a significant
misrepresentation from FairVote.
In particular, it's not the significant(!) kind of misrepresentation I
had in mind when I started this thread.
Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
FairVote organization are:
* Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
* The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
popular candidate
* The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
* Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
are not worth considering
* Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by
the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
difficult to change to anything better)
* Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts
that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked at)
(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one
of them.)
For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
voting are (off the top of my head):
* Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)
* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
choice ballots)
* Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice
ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
* STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
and bottom-rank all other candidates)
* Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
* Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
failures (including Condorcet failures)
* Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
* STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
* Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
* Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
* The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
that uses ranked choice ballots
* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
(I might be forgetting one or two more.)
Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:
* Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method
should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
considered by the voters or elected officials
I'm pleased to learn (from the discussion between the two Michaels) that
Rob Richie is no longer the leader of the FairVote organization. He was
the source of lots of misrepresentation.
About a year or so ago I participated in a three-way Zoom meeting with
Deb Otis who works at the FairVote organization. I was pleased that she
did not make any misrepresentations about IRV or STV.
However, I disagree with her claim that correctly counting overvotes is
not worth the extra effort needed. Besides being an issue about spoiled
ballots, counting "overvotes" also allows a voter to rank their
most-disliked candidate lower than all other candidates when there are
just 6 choice rankings and more than 6 candidates (which affects ballot
real estate, which election officials regard as very important).
Also, I disagree with her claim that the failure in Burlington was
acceptable because it was just one election out of about 400 elections.
(This was before Alaska's special election that also had a Condorcet
failure.)
I'll clarify that I've softened my opinion about Condorcet failures.
I'll accept a few such failures if the election method gains significant
other kinds of advantages.
However, I strongly believe that when IRV eliminations reach the top
three candidates, the presence of a pairwise losing candidate (who would
lose both one-on-one contests against the other two candidates) should
not cause the majority-supported candidate to lose.
Typically I shorten this point by saying that pairwise losing candidates
should be eliminated when they occur. Yet because Michael Ossipoff
likes to jump on wording-based issues, I'll clarify that I really don't
care about the exact order of elimination of the candidates who get
eliminated prior to the top-three round.
Getting back to my main point, my hope is that the people leading the
three main election-method organizations (FairVote, STAR ..., ESF)
recognize that making misrepresentations undermines our goal of ending
"first past the post" (academically known as "plurality voting").
And I'll repeat my specific request to please(!) avoid
misrepresentations that might block the state-legislature-approved(!)
referendum for ranked choice voting that will be on Oregon's 2024
November election ballot.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman
> <michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Michael Ossipoff* <email9648742@gmail.com
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
> To: Michael Garman
> <michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
>
...
GD
Greg Dennis
Mon, Dec 18, 2023 7:17 PM
Richard, I don't work for or represent FairVote, but I'd like to correct
some claims and seek citations for others:
Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
I have not seen any FairVote claim that overvotes cannot in theory be
counted. To the extent FairVote made any related claim, it is likely a
truthful claim about the practical reality: no certified tabulation
software exists that is capable of counting them. For example, the only
options in Dominion's Democracy Suite are to either truncate the ballot as
soon as an overvote is encountered or to skip over the overvote to the next
ranking.
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner.
There being no universally agreed upon meaning of "correct winner," that
statement cannot be a "misrepresentation," only an opinion. If there were
such a meaning, this list, whose purpose it is to understand and balance
the various criteria, would have no need to exist.
Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods are
That's just not true. As you know from the Zoom meeting with Deb Otis,
FairVote does consider the Condorcet criterion important, which is why
they collect
and publish data
https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#condorcet-winners on how
often IRV elects the Condorcet winner. Furthermore, they have "considered"
Condorcet methods, as evidenced by their various pieces on Condorcet and
other alternative methods (example
https://fairvote.org/archives/alternatives-to-rcv/). It would be fair to
say that they do not place as high a level of importance on the criterion
as you and others do, but I don't think it's fair to say that they consider
the criterion unimportant or not even worth consideration.
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read anyone
from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to read it.
Thanks,
Greg
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:36 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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.
I agree with Michael Garman that this is not a significant
misrepresentation from FairVote.
In particular, it's not the significant(!) kind of misrepresentation I
had in mind when I started this thread.
Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
FairVote organization are:
-
Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
-
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
popular candidate
-
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
-
Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
are not worth considering
-
Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by
the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
difficult to change to anything better)
-
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts
that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked
at)
(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one
of them.)
For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
voting are (off the top of my head):
-
Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)
-
Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
choice ballots)
-
Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice
ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
-
STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
and bottom-rank all other candidates)
-
Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
-
Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
failures (including Condorcet failures)
-
Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
-
STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
-
Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
-
Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
-
The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
that uses ranked choice ballots
-
Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
(I might be forgetting one or two more.)
Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:
- Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method
should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
considered by the voters or elected officials
I'm pleased to learn (from the discussion between the two Michaels) that
Rob Richie is no longer the leader of the FairVote organization. He was
the source of lots of misrepresentation.
About a year or so ago I participated in a three-way Zoom meeting with
Deb Otis who works at the FairVote organization. I was pleased that she
did not make any misrepresentations about IRV or STV.
However, I disagree with her claim that correctly counting overvotes is
not worth the extra effort needed. Besides being an issue about spoiled
ballots, counting "overvotes" also allows a voter to rank their
most-disliked candidate lower than all other candidates when there are
just 6 choice rankings and more than 6 candidates (which affects ballot
real estate, which election officials regard as very important).
Also, I disagree with her claim that the failure in Burlington was
acceptable because it was just one election out of about 400 elections.
(This was before Alaska's special election that also had a Condorcet
failure.)
I'll clarify that I've softened my opinion about Condorcet failures.
I'll accept a few such failures if the election method gains significant
other kinds of advantages.
However, I strongly believe that when IRV eliminations reach the top
three candidates, the presence of a pairwise losing candidate (who would
lose both one-on-one contests against the other two candidates) should
not cause the majority-supported candidate to lose.
Typically I shorten this point by saying that pairwise losing candidates
should be eliminated when they occur. Yet because Michael Ossipoff
likes to jump on wording-based issues, I'll clarify that I really don't
care about the exact order of elimination of the candidates who get
eliminated prior to the top-three round.
Getting back to my main point, my hope is that the people leading the
three main election-method organizations (FairVote, STAR ..., ESF)
recognize that making misrepresentations undermines our goal of ending
"first past the post" (academically known as "plurality voting").
And I'll repeat my specific request to please(!) avoid
misrepresentations that might block the state-legislature-approved(!)
referendum for ranked choice voting that will be on Oregon's 2024
November election ballot.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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 mailto: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 <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto: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
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 <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
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
<mailto: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
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: *Michael Ossipoff* <email9648742@gmail.com
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto: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
…intentional lying to sell a product.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman
<michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
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
<mailto:
Richard, I don't work for or represent FairVote, but I'd like to correct
some claims and seek citations for others:
Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
I have not seen any FairVote claim that overvotes cannot in theory be
counted. To the extent FairVote made any related claim, it is likely a
truthful claim about the practical reality: no certified tabulation
software exists that is capable of counting them. For example, the only
options in Dominion's Democracy Suite are to either truncate the ballot as
soon as an overvote is encountered or to skip over the overvote to the next
ranking.
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner.
There being no universally agreed upon meaning of "correct winner," that
statement cannot be a "misrepresentation," only an opinion. If there were
such a meaning, this list, whose purpose it is to understand and balance
the various criteria, would have no need to exist.
Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods are
> not worth considering
That's just not true. As you know from the Zoom meeting with Deb Otis,
FairVote does consider the Condorcet criterion important, which is why
they collect
and publish data
<https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#condorcet-winners> on how
often IRV elects the Condorcet winner. Furthermore, they have "considered"
Condorcet methods, as evidenced by their various pieces on Condorcet and
other alternative methods (example
<https://fairvote.org/archives/alternatives-to-rcv/>). It would be fair to
say that they do not place as high a level of importance on the criterion
as you and others do, but I don't think it's fair to say that they consider
the criterion unimportant or not even worth consideration.
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
> elections in Australia.
I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read anyone
from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to read it.
Thanks,
Greg
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:36 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
> On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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.
>
> I agree with Michael Garman that this is not a significant
> misrepresentation from FairVote.
>
> In particular, it's not the significant(!) kind of misrepresentation I
> had in mind when I started this thread.
>
> Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
> FairVote organization are:
>
> * Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
>
> * The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
> popular candidate
>
> * The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
>
> * Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
> are not worth considering
>
> * Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by
> the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
> (even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
> difficult to change to anything better)
>
> * Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
> elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
> write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts
> that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked
> at)
>
> (There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one
> of them.)
>
> For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
> voting are (off the top of my head):
>
> * Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)
>
> * Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
> is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
> choice ballots)
>
> * Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice
> ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
> alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
>
> * STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
> (which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
> candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
> and bottom-rank all other candidates)
>
> * Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
> fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
>
> * Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
> failures (including Condorcet failures)
>
> * Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
> step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
>
> * STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
>
> Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
>
> * Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
>
> * Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
>
> * The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
> that uses ranked choice ballots
>
> * Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
> presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
>
> (I might be forgetting one or two more.)
>
> Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:
>
> * Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
> about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method
> should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
> considered by the voters or elected officials
>
> I'm pleased to learn (from the discussion between the two Michaels) that
> Rob Richie is no longer the leader of the FairVote organization. He was
> the source of lots of misrepresentation.
>
> About a year or so ago I participated in a three-way Zoom meeting with
> Deb Otis who works at the FairVote organization. I was pleased that she
> did not make any misrepresentations about IRV or STV.
>
> However, I disagree with her claim that correctly counting overvotes is
> not worth the extra effort needed. Besides being an issue about spoiled
> ballots, counting "overvotes" also allows a voter to rank their
> most-disliked candidate lower than all other candidates when there are
> just 6 choice rankings and more than 6 candidates (which affects ballot
> real estate, which election officials regard as very important).
>
> Also, I disagree with her claim that the failure in Burlington was
> acceptable because it was just one election out of about 400 elections.
> (This was before Alaska's special election that also had a Condorcet
> failure.)
>
> I'll clarify that I've softened my opinion about Condorcet failures.
> I'll accept a few such failures if the election method gains significant
> other kinds of advantages.
>
> However, I strongly believe that when IRV eliminations reach the top
> three candidates, the presence of a pairwise losing candidate (who would
> lose both one-on-one contests against the other two candidates) should
> not cause the majority-supported candidate to lose.
>
> Typically I shorten this point by saying that pairwise losing candidates
> should be eliminated when they occur. Yet because Michael Ossipoff
> likes to jump on wording-based issues, I'll clarify that I really don't
> care about the exact order of elimination of the candidates who get
> eliminated prior to the top-three round.
>
> Getting back to my main point, my hope is that the people leading the
> three main election-method organizations (FairVote, STAR ..., ESF)
> recognize that making misrepresentations undermines our goal of ending
> "first past the post" (academically known as "plurality voting").
>
> And I'll repeat my specific request to please(!) avoid
> misrepresentations that might block the state-legislature-approved(!)
> referendum for ranked choice voting that will be on Oregon's 2024
> November election ballot.
>
> Richard Fobes
> The VoteFair guy
>
>
> On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman
> > <michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> > <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: *Michael Ossipoff* <email9648742@gmail.com
> > <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>
> > Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
> > Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
> > To: Michael Garman
> > <michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto:
> electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
> >
> ...
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
--
*Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.835.9161
w :: voterchoicema.org <https://www.voterchoicema.org/>
:: Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/yeson2rcv> and Twitter
<https://twitter.com/yeson2rcv> ::
TP
Toby Pereira
Tue, Dec 19, 2023 4:08 PM
Richard, quite a few of your "misrepresentations" are simply cases where you disagree. I think Greg Dennis has already addressed a couple of them but things like "Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections" and "Approval voting would be suitable for general elections" should not be included in your list.
Toby
On Monday, 18 December 2023 at 18:37:02 GMT, Richard, the VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
FairVote organization are:
-
Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
-
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
popular candidate
-
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
-
Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
are not worth considering
-
Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by
the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
difficult to change to anything better)
-
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts
that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked at)
(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one
of them.)
For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
voting are (off the top of my head):
-
Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)
-
Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
choice ballots)
-
Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice
ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
-
STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
and bottom-rank all other candidates)
-
Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
-
Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
failures (including Condorcet failures)
-
Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
-
STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
-
Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
-
Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
-
The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
that uses ranked choice ballots
-
Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
(I might be forgetting one or two more.)
Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:
- Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method
should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
considered by the voters or elected officials
Richard, quite a few of your "misrepresentations" are simply cases where you disagree. I think Greg Dennis has already addressed a couple of them but things like "Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections" and "Approval voting would be suitable for general elections" should not be included in your list.
Toby
On Monday, 18 December 2023 at 18:37:02 GMT, Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
FairVote organization are:
* Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
* The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
popular candidate
* The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
* Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
are not worth considering
* Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording supplied by
the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
difficult to change to anything better)
* Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on shortcuts
that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be looked at)
(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not one
of them.)
For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
voting are (off the top of my head):
* Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a big lie!)
* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
choice ballots)
* Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked choice
ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
* STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
and bottom-rank all other candidates)
* Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
* Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
failures (including Condorcet failures)
* Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
* STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
* Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
* Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
* The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
that uses ranked choice ballots
* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
(I might be forgetting one or two more.)
Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three organizations:
* Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred method
should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
considered by the voters or elected officials
RT
Richard, the VoteFair guy
Wed, Dec 20, 2023 2:23 AM
On 12/18/2023 11:17 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:36 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy ... wrote:
[... as an example of a misrepresentation from FairVote ...]
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with
prior elections in Australia.
I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read
anyone from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to
read it.
Here's the wording that was adopted for Portand (Oregon) using ranked
choice voting:
https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/16114624/File/Document
Here's the quote in this document that specifies how overvotes are counted:
"Overvote. If a ballot contains an overvote, the voter’s vote is
transferred to the next highest-ranked active candidate on the voter’s
ballot, if any."
This choice makes sense in Australia where two handwritten numbers being
the same is a reason to suspect the voter lost track of their numbering.
With that perspective it's reasonable to skip the duplicate numbers.
However, here in Oregon everyone votes at home using paper ballots and a
pen. So the adopted interpretation (above) is exactly the opposite from
what the voter intends, which is to rank the same-ranked candidate
above, not below, the "next highest-ranked active candidate."
The recommendation to choose this option came from the Ranked Choice
Voting Resource Center, not from FairVote. However, I've seen wordings
from FairVote, and their wordings are very similar.
The other better option that certified software can handle is to dismiss
the remaining marks on the ballot.
Even better, I'm promoting awareness of this detail so that in the
future a city or state will have the option to correctly count the
so-called "overvotes."
I have not seen any FairVote claim that overvotes cannot in theory be
counted. ...
Yes, FairVote does not claim that overvotes cannot "in theory" be counted.
However, two years earlier, the FairVote organization tried to push
through an Oregon bill that handled overvotes in a similar way.
Fortunately the Oregon attorney who co-wrote the recently adopted state
referendum -- and who has received payments from FairVote -- paid
attention to feedback from me and other election-method reformers. He
recognized that counting overvotes is a "counting detail" that did not
need to be included. So overvotes are not mentioned in the bill that
passed in the Oregon state legislature. This allows for a software
upgrade to correctly count so-called "overvotes" without changing the
legal wording.
FWIW I pointed out the overvote counting flaw while the Portland
election officials were taking feedback, but my feedback about this
point was ignored. I also gave verbal testimony to the Portland city
council but they couldn't change the wording. (Later one of the council
members did try to switch city council elections from STV to IRV but
backlash from lots of us ended that attempt.) The mayoral election will
use IRV. I'm not as concerned about the overvote-counting mistake for
the STV city-council elections because a close STV election will mostly
only affect the order in which the 3 seats (per district) are filled.
As for the other responses from Greg Dennis, I'll repeat my main point,
which is that the fans of STAR voting are exploiting misrepresentations
in what FairVote and RCVRC (Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center) promote.
Keep in mind the fans of STAR voting are trying to block the statewide
RCV reform (already on the November 2024 ballot) because they are
pushing a statewide petition to adopt STAR voting statewide. And
because of financial backing they are collecting lots of signatures,
although not likely enough to get it on the ballot. Yet their
misrepresentation of RCV is undermining the chances of voters approving
the state-legislature-approved referendum.
Multiple STAR fans expressed strong opposition when the Oregon state
legislature considered the RCV bill that they passed. That opposition
was both in writing and in verbal testimony. That too undermines
support for the referendum.
Again, this "counting detail" would be much less important if FairVote
and RCVRC would communicate with Oregon election officials about the
fact that these weaknesses (overvote counting and Burlington/Alaska
mistakes) are easy to remedy without abandoning ranked choice ballots --
particularly without needing to switch to STAR ballots.
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner.
There being no universally agreed upon meaning of "correct winner," that
statement cannot be a "misrepresentation," only an opinion. If there
were such a meaning, this list, whose purpose it is to understand and
balance the various criteria, would have no need to exist.
The fans of STAR voting promote the Burlington VT election result as a
failure of the "center squeeze effect."
Their success in promoting STAR voting reveals that lots of voters do
regard the Burlington election as giving the wrong result.
Of course this issue becomes complex to explain because Condorcet fans
regard the Burlington election as a Condorcet failure. And the failure
also fits within the bigger category of an IIA (independence of
irrelevant alternatives) failure.
Personally I portray the Burlington/Alaska failures as the failure to
eliminate a pairwise losing candidate (roughly "a" Condorcet loser,
although not "the" Condorcet loser of the contest) during the top-three
counting round. I find that most people more easily understand this
reasoning, especially when using the metaphor of a soccer team that
loses every match against every other remaining team.
Personally I think it's worth educating election-method reformers that
the mistakes in Burlington and Alaska are easy to remedy. That
awareness can yield improved legal wording that can be refined later,
just by adding two sentences about eliminating pairwise losing
candidates when they occur.
In contrast, the legal wording FairVote originally tried to push through
the Oregon legislature would have made this refinement very difficult.
Yes, these details are too subtle for voters to think about.
Yet if we don't get the legal wording right, it will be easy for
anti-RCV folks to exploit the same misrepresentations that the fans of
STAR voting are exploiting.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/18/2023 11:17 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
Richard, I don't work for or represent FairVote, but I'd like to correct
some claims and seek citations for others:
Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
I have not seen any FairVote claim that overvotes cannot in theory be
counted. To the extent FairVote made any related claim, it is likely a
truthful claim about the practical reality: no certified tabulation
software exists that is capable of counting them. For example, the only
options in Dominion's Democracy Suite are to either truncate the ballot
as soon as an overvote is encountered or to skip over the overvote to
the next ranking.
The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner.
There being no universally agreed upon meaning of "correct winner," that
statement cannot be a "misrepresentation," only an opinion. If there
were such a meaning, this list, whose purpose it is to understand and
balance the various criteria, would have no need to exist.
Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet
methods are not worth considering
That's just not true. As you know from the Zoom meeting with Deb Otis,
FairVote does consider the Condorcet criterion important, which is why
they collect and publish data
https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#condorcet-winners on how
often IRV elects the Condorcet winner. Furthermore, they
have "considered" Condorcet methods, as evidenced by their various
pieces on Condorcet and other alternative methods (example
https://fairvote.org/archives/alternatives-to-rcv/). It would be fair
to say that they do not place as high a level of importance on the
criterion as you and others do, but I don't think it's fair to say that
they consider the criterion unimportant or not even worth consideration.
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with
prior elections in Australia.
I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read
anyone from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to
read it.
Thanks,
Greg
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:36 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy
<electionmethods@votefair.org mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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.
I agree with Michael Garman that this is not a significant
misrepresentation from FairVote.
In particular, it's not the significant(!) kind of misrepresentation I
had in mind when I started this thread.
Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
FairVote organization are:
* Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to
count them
* The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
popular candidate
* The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
* Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
are not worth considering
* Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording
supplied by
the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
(even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
difficult to change to anything better)
* Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on
shortcuts
that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be
looked at)
(There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not
one
of them.)
For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
voting are (off the top of my head):
* Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a
big lie!)
* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
choice ballots)
* Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked
choice
ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
* STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
(which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
and bottom-rank all other candidates)
* Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
* Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
failures (including Condorcet failures)
* Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
* STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
* Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
* Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
* The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
that uses ranked choice ballots
* Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
(I might be forgetting one or two more.)
Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three
organizations:
* Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred
method
should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
considered by the voters or elected officials
I'm pleased to learn (from the discussion between the two Michaels)
that
Rob Richie is no longer the leader of the FairVote organization. He
was
the source of lots of misrepresentation.
About a year or so ago I participated in a three-way Zoom meeting with
Deb Otis who works at the FairVote organization. I was pleased that
she
did not make any misrepresentations about IRV or STV.
However, I disagree with her claim that correctly counting overvotes is
not worth the extra effort needed. Besides being an issue about
spoiled
ballots, counting "overvotes" also allows a voter to rank their
most-disliked candidate lower than all other candidates when there are
just 6 choice rankings and more than 6 candidates (which affects ballot
real estate, which election officials regard as very important).
Also, I disagree with her claim that the failure in Burlington was
acceptable because it was just one election out of about 400 elections.
(This was before Alaska's special election that also had a Condorcet
failure.)
I'll clarify that I've softened my opinion about Condorcet failures.
I'll accept a few such failures if the election method gains
significant
other kinds of advantages.
However, I strongly believe that when IRV eliminations reach the top
three candidates, the presence of a pairwise losing candidate (who
would
lose both one-on-one contests against the other two candidates) should
not cause the majority-supported candidate to lose.
Typically I shorten this point by saying that pairwise losing
candidates
should be eliminated when they occur. Yet because Michael Ossipoff
likes to jump on wording-based issues, I'll clarify that I really don't
care about the exact order of elimination of the candidates who get
eliminated prior to the top-three round.
Getting back to my main point, my hope is that the people leading the
three main election-method organizations (FairVote, STAR ..., ESF)
recognize that making misrepresentations undermines our goal of ending
"first past the post" (academically known as "plurality voting").
And I'll repeat my specific request to please(!) avoid
misrepresentations that might block the state-legislature-approved(!)
referendum for ranked choice voting that will be on Oregon's 2024
November election ballot.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
"Ballots that do not help voters’ top choices win count for their
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
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>>>
wrote:
I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>> wrote:
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
<mailto: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
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
I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of
spelling my surname correctly. I know it's hard to
not like it's in my email address, display name, or
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>> wrote:
You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
<mailto: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
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff
<email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>>
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
<mailto: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 someone making incorrect statements.
You forgot to specify the incorrect
“The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
You evidently think fraud is good.
I wasn’t criticizing STE. I was
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>>> wrote:
Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you
the perfect be the enemy of the good
greatest obstacle to any progress
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>> wrote:
I didn’t say that
Successive-Topcount-Elimination
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
against Worst if Favorite doesn’t
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 <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
<mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>>>
wrote:
Oh come on Michael. You can’t
the system itself is “fraud”
you dislike one of the many
organizations that advocate
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
<mailto:email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
Yes, many RCV opponents were
formerly RCV advocates…until
they found out that
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
they find out.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20
Richard, the VoteFair guy
<electionmethods@votefair.org <mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>
<mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org
<mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>>> wrote:
On 12/18/2023 11:17 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:36 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy ... wrote:
[... as an example of a misrepresentation from FairVote ...]
>> Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with
>> prior elections in Australia.
> I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read
> anyone from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to
> read it.
Here's the wording that was adopted for Portand (Oregon) using ranked
choice voting:
https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/16114624/File/Document
Here's the quote in this document that specifies how overvotes are counted:
"Overvote. If a ballot contains an overvote, the voter’s vote is
transferred to the next highest-ranked active candidate on the voter’s
ballot, if any."
This choice makes sense in Australia where two handwritten numbers being
the same is a reason to suspect the voter lost track of their numbering.
With that perspective it's reasonable to skip the duplicate numbers.
However, here in Oregon everyone votes at home using paper ballots and a
pen. So the adopted interpretation (above) is exactly the opposite from
what the voter intends, which is to rank the same-ranked candidate
above, not below, the "next highest-ranked active candidate."
The recommendation to choose this option came from the Ranked Choice
Voting Resource Center, not from FairVote. However, I've seen wordings
from FairVote, and their wordings are very similar.
The other better option that certified software can handle is to dismiss
the remaining marks on the ballot.
Even better, I'm promoting awareness of this detail so that in the
future a city or state will have the option to correctly count the
so-called "overvotes."
> I have not seen any FairVote claim that overvotes cannot in theory be
> counted. ...
Yes, FairVote does not claim that overvotes cannot "in theory" be counted.
However, two years earlier, the FairVote organization tried to push
through an Oregon bill that handled overvotes in a similar way.
Fortunately the Oregon attorney who co-wrote the recently adopted state
referendum -- and who has received payments from FairVote -- paid
attention to feedback from me and other election-method reformers. He
recognized that counting overvotes is a "counting detail" that did not
need to be included. So overvotes are not mentioned in the bill that
passed in the Oregon state legislature. This allows for a software
upgrade to correctly count so-called "overvotes" without changing the
legal wording.
FWIW I pointed out the overvote counting flaw while the Portland
election officials were taking feedback, but my feedback about this
point was ignored. I also gave verbal testimony to the Portland city
council but they couldn't change the wording. (Later one of the council
members did try to switch city council elections from STV to IRV but
backlash from lots of us ended that attempt.) The mayoral election will
use IRV. I'm not as concerned about the overvote-counting mistake for
the STV city-council elections because a close STV election will mostly
only affect the order in which the 3 seats (per district) are filled.
As for the other responses from Greg Dennis, I'll repeat my main point,
which is that the fans of STAR voting are exploiting misrepresentations
in what FairVote and RCVRC (Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center) promote.
Keep in mind the fans of STAR voting are trying to block the statewide
RCV reform (already on the November 2024 ballot) because they are
pushing a statewide petition to adopt STAR voting statewide. And
because of financial backing they are collecting lots of signatures,
although not likely enough to get it on the ballot. Yet their
misrepresentation of RCV is undermining the chances of voters approving
the state-legislature-approved referendum.
Multiple STAR fans expressed strong opposition when the Oregon state
legislature considered the RCV bill that they passed. That opposition
was both in writing and in verbal testimony. That too undermines
support for the referendum.
Again, this "counting detail" would be much less important if FairVote
and RCVRC would communicate with Oregon election officials about the
fact that these weaknesses (overvote counting and Burlington/Alaska
mistakes) are easy to remedy without abandoning ranked choice ballots --
particularly without needing to switch to STAR ballots.
>> The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner.
> There being no universally agreed upon meaning of "correct winner," that
> statement cannot be a "misrepresentation," only an opinion. If there
> were such a meaning, this list, whose purpose it is to understand and
> balance the various criteria, would have no need to exist.
The fans of STAR voting promote the Burlington VT election result as a
failure of the "center squeeze effect."
Their success in promoting STAR voting reveals that lots of voters do
regard the Burlington election as giving the wrong result.
Of course this issue becomes complex to explain because Condorcet fans
regard the Burlington election as a Condorcet failure. And the failure
also fits within the bigger category of an IIA (independence of
irrelevant alternatives) failure.
Personally I portray the Burlington/Alaska failures as the failure to
eliminate a pairwise losing candidate (roughly "a" Condorcet loser,
although not "the" Condorcet loser of the contest) during the top-three
counting round. I find that most people more easily understand this
reasoning, especially when using the metaphor of a soccer team that
loses every match against every other remaining team.
Personally I think it's worth educating election-method reformers that
the mistakes in Burlington and Alaska are easy to remedy. That
awareness can yield improved legal wording that can be refined later,
just by adding two sentences about eliminating pairwise losing
candidates when they occur.
In contrast, the legal wording FairVote originally tried to push through
the Oregon legislature would have made this refinement very difficult.
Yes, these details are too subtle for voters to think about.
Yet if we don't get the legal wording right, it will be easy for
anti-RCV folks to exploit the same misrepresentations that the fans of
STAR voting are exploiting.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/18/2023 11:17 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> Richard, I don't work for or represent FairVote, but I'd like to correct
> some claims and seek citations for others:
>
> Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to count them
>
>
> I have not seen any FairVote claim that overvotes cannot in theory be
> counted. To the extent FairVote made any related claim, it is likely a
> truthful claim about the practical reality: no certified tabulation
> software exists that is capable of counting them. For example, the only
> options in Dominion's Democracy Suite are to either truncate the ballot
> as soon as an overvote is encountered or to skip over the overvote to
> the next ranking.
>
> The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner.
>
>
> There being no universally agreed upon meaning of "correct winner," that
> statement cannot be a "misrepresentation," only an opinion. If there
> were such a meaning, this list, whose purpose it is to understand and
> balance the various criteria, would have no need to exist.
>
> Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet
> methods are not worth considering
>
>
> That's just not true. As you know from the Zoom meeting with Deb Otis,
> FairVote does consider the Condorcet criterion important, which is why
> they collect and publish data
> <https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#condorcet-winners> on how
> often IRV elects the Condorcet winner. Furthermore, they
> have "considered" Condorcet methods, as evidenced by their various
> pieces on Condorcet and other alternative methods (example
> <https://fairvote.org/archives/alternatives-to-rcv/>). It would be fair
> to say that they do not place as high a level of importance on the
> criterion as you and others do, but I don't think it's fair to say that
> they consider the criterion unimportant or not even worth consideration.
>
> Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with
> prior elections in Australia.
>
>
> I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read
> anyone from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to
> read it.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:36 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy
> <electionmethods@votefair.org <mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>> wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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.
>
> I agree with Michael Garman that this is not a significant
> misrepresentation from FairVote.
>
> In particular, it's not the significant(!) kind of misrepresentation I
> had in mind when I started this thread.
>
> Examples of what I believe are significant misrepresentations from the
> FairVote organization are:
>
> * Overvotes cannot be counted, and it's not worth attempting to
> count them
>
> * The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is always the least
> popular candidate
>
> * The winner in Burlington VT was the correct winner
>
> * Electing the Condorcet winner is not important, and Condorcet methods
> are not worth considering
>
> * Ranked choice voting counting rules should use the wording
> supplied by
> the FairVote organization or the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
> (even though that wording is awful, and seemingly worded to make it
> difficult to change to anything better)
>
> * Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with prior
> elections in Australia (even though their ballots require a voter to
> write numbers in a box, and their counting process is based on
> shortcuts
> that arose to minimize how many times each paper ballot had to be
> looked at)
>
> (There might be others, but the one Michael Ossipoff presents is not
> one
> of them.)
>
> For comparison, the biggest misrepresentations from the fans of STAR
> voting are (off the top of my head):
>
> * Ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote splitting (this is a
> big lie!)
>
> * Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (which
> is implied by presenting IRV as if it's the only way to count ranked
> choice ballots)
>
> * Claiming they "officially" support a method for counting ranked
> choice
> ballots ("Ranked Robin") yet never mentioning that method as a possible
> alternative to IRV (when they villify ranked choice ballots)
>
> * STAR voting is resistant to tactical voting and strategic nomination
> (which ignores the case in which a large minority offers two similar
> candidates and tells their voters to top-rank both of those candidates
> and bottom-rank all other candidates)
>
> * Summability is still important (even though we now have very fast
> fiberoptic speeds instead of slow modem speeds)
>
> * Monotonicity failures should never occur, and are worse than other
> failures (including Condorcet failures)
>
> * Pairwise counting is not important (even though STAR voting's second
> step is to do pairwise counting between the top two)
>
> * STAR voting is a better kind of ranked choice voting
>
> Here are some misrepresentations from the Election Science Foundation:
>
> * Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections
>
> * Approval voting would be suitable for general elections
>
> * The simplicity of Approval voting justifies not pursuing any method
> that uses ranked choice ballots
>
> * Ranked choice ballots cannot be counted in ways that are fair (by
> presenting IRV as if it were the only option)
>
> (I might be forgetting one or two more.)
>
> Finally here's a misrepresentation that applies to all three
> organizations:
>
> * Our organization taught the voters in such-and-such city (or state)
> about the evils of vote splitting so our organization's preferred
> method
> should be adopted in this city (or state) and no other method should be
> considered by the voters or elected officials
>
> I'm pleased to learn (from the discussion between the two Michaels)
> that
> Rob Richie is no longer the leader of the FairVote organization. He
> was
> the source of lots of misrepresentation.
>
> About a year or so ago I participated in a three-way Zoom meeting with
> Deb Otis who works at the FairVote organization. I was pleased that
> she
> did not make any misrepresentations about IRV or STV.
>
> However, I disagree with her claim that correctly counting overvotes is
> not worth the extra effort needed. Besides being an issue about
> spoiled
> ballots, counting "overvotes" also allows a voter to rank their
> most-disliked candidate lower than all other candidates when there are
> just 6 choice rankings and more than 6 candidates (which affects ballot
> real estate, which election officials regard as very important).
>
> Also, I disagree with her claim that the failure in Burlington was
> acceptable because it was just one election out of about 400 elections.
> (This was before Alaska's special election that also had a Condorcet
> failure.)
>
> I'll clarify that I've softened my opinion about Condorcet failures.
> I'll accept a few such failures if the election method gains
> significant
> other kinds of advantages.
>
> However, I strongly believe that when IRV eliminations reach the top
> three candidates, the presence of a pairwise losing candidate (who
> would
> lose both one-on-one contests against the other two candidates) should
> not cause the majority-supported candidate to lose.
>
> Typically I shorten this point by saying that pairwise losing
> candidates
> should be eliminated when they occur. Yet because Michael Ossipoff
> likes to jump on wording-based issues, I'll clarify that I really don't
> care about the exact order of elimination of the candidates who get
> eliminated prior to the top-three round.
>
> Getting back to my main point, my hope is that the people leading the
> three main election-method organizations (FairVote, STAR ..., ESF)
> recognize that making misrepresentations undermines our goal of ending
> "first past the post" (academically known as "plurality voting").
>
> And I'll repeat my specific request to please(!) avoid
> misrepresentations that might block the state-legislature-approved(!)
> referendum for ranked choice voting that will be on Oregon's 2024
> November election ballot.
>
> Richard Fobes
> The VoteFair guy
>
>
> On 12/17/2023 6:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff 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
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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 <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman
> > <michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
> > <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
> > <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: *Michael Ossipoff*
> <email9648742@gmail.com <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>>>
> > Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
> > Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
> > To: Michael Garman
> > <michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
> > <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
> > <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us>
> >
> <mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com>
> >
> <mailto:email9648742@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>
> >
> <mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org
> <mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org>>> wrote:
> >
> ...
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
> <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
>
>
>
> --
> *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
> Voter Choice Massachusetts
>
> e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org>
> p :: 617.835.9161 <tel:617.835.9161>
> w :: voterchoicema.org <https://www.voterchoicema.org/>
>
> :: Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/yeson2rcv> and
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/yeson2rcv> ::
GD
Greg Dennis
Wed, Dec 20, 2023 3:03 AM
Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with
prior elections in Australia.
I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read
anyone from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to
read it.
Here's the wording that was adopted for Portand (Oregon) using ranked
choice voting:
The word Australia doesn't appear anywhere in that document. Whatever the
rationale for using that treatment of overvotes, there is no evidence that
backwards-compatibility with Australia elections was a factor.
>
> >> Ranked choice voting software must be backwards compatible with
> >> prior elections in Australia.
> > I do not know the source of this claim and have never heard or read
> > anyone from FairVote state this. If you have a source, I'd be glad to
> > read it.
> Here's the wording that was adopted for Portand (Oregon) using ranked
> choice voting:
> https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/16114624/File/Document
The word Australia doesn't appear anywhere in that document. Whatever the
rationale for using that treatment of overvotes, there is no evidence that
backwards-compatibility with Australia elections was a factor.
- Greg
RT
Richard, the VoteFair guy
Fri, Dec 22, 2023 7:54 PM
On 12/19/2023 8:08 AM, Toby Pereira wrote:
Richard, quite a few of your "misrepresentations" are simply cases where
you disagree. I think Greg Dennis has already addressed a couple of them
but things like "Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections"
and "Approval voting would be suitable for general elections" should not
be included in your list.
I don't claim that my list is authoritative. It's just based on the
evidence I've seen. With that in mind, ...
Where is score voting used in a governmental election?
(Giving each candidate an upvote, or a downvote, or neither (neutral)
doesn't count as score voting, even though it does qualify as a rating
ballot rather than a ranking ballot.)
STAR voting does use score voting as the first step, but the second step
of top-two runoff is needed to compensate for the many unfair results
that would come from using score voting alone. And so far the most
significant adopters of STAR voting have arisen because of claims that
it's better than "ranked choice voting" (RCV) without clarifying that
those promotions regard FairVote's (legacy) version of RCV as the only
way to count ranked choice ballots.
The fact that score voting isn't significantly used is, to me, a clear
indication that it's not "a reasonable choice." Especially because so
many other better methods are gaining traction for use in governmental
elections.
As for Approval voting, even the people who promote it acknowledge that
it's primary advantage is ease of adoption regarding the ballot marking
process and the counting process. (They also claim it's easy for a
voter to figure out how to choose which candidates to approve, but I
don't see evidence that supports that claim.) Now that ranked choice
ballots are getting adopted relatively quickly (within the limits of
governmental slowness), that simplicity advantage is disappearing.
Also I haven't heard fans of Approval voting claiming that the results
are better than using ranked choice voting with a good counting method.
In particular, I've never heard anyone make a meaningful claim that
Approval voting would be a good choice for U.S. presidential general
elections (even if all 50 states suddenly switched to that method).
I admit that Approval voting is suitable for use in primary elections.
However it's even easier, less confusing, and just as fair, to nominate
a second candidate (from the same party) when the candidate with the
most votes fails to get majority support in a plurality/FPTP primary
election. That second nominee is the one who gets the second-most
number of plurality votes.
The people who strongly support Approval voting seem to be promoting it
as a stepping stone to score voting. Yet, as indicated above, score
voting doesn't have any significant adoption, just some people promoting
its adoption.
Of course Approval voting, and possibly score voting, are better than
plurality voting, but that's a very low standard for comparison.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 12/19/2023 8:08 AM, Toby Pereira wrote:
> Richard, quite a few of your "misrepresentations" are simply cases where
> you disagree. I think Greg Dennis has already addressed a couple of them
> but things like "Score voting would be a reasonable choice in elections"
> and "Approval voting would be suitable for general elections" should not
> be included in your list.
I don't claim that my list is authoritative. It's just based on the
evidence I've seen. With that in mind, ...
Where is score voting used in a governmental election?
(Giving each candidate an upvote, or a downvote, or neither (neutral)
doesn't count as score voting, even though it does qualify as a rating
ballot rather than a ranking ballot.)
STAR voting does use score voting as the first step, but the second step
of top-two runoff is needed to compensate for the many unfair results
that would come from using score voting alone. And so far the most
significant adopters of STAR voting have arisen because of claims that
it's better than "ranked choice voting" (RCV) without clarifying that
those promotions regard FairVote's (legacy) version of RCV as the only
way to count ranked choice ballots.
The fact that score voting isn't significantly used is, to me, a clear
indication that it's not "a reasonable choice." Especially because so
many other better methods are gaining traction for use in governmental
elections.
As for Approval voting, even the people who promote it acknowledge that
it's primary advantage is ease of adoption regarding the ballot marking
process and the counting process. (They also claim it's easy for a
voter to figure out how to choose which candidates to approve, but I
don't see evidence that supports that claim.) Now that ranked choice
ballots are getting adopted relatively quickly (within the limits of
governmental slowness), that simplicity advantage is disappearing.
Also I haven't heard fans of Approval voting claiming that the results
are better than using ranked choice voting with a good counting method.
In particular, I've never heard anyone make a meaningful claim that
Approval voting would be a good choice for U.S. presidential general
elections (even if all 50 states suddenly switched to that method).
I admit that Approval voting is suitable for use in primary elections.
However it's even easier, less confusing, and just as fair, to nominate
a second candidate (from the same party) when the candidate with the
most votes fails to get majority support in a plurality/FPTP primary
election. That second nominee is the one who gets the second-most
number of plurality votes.
The people who strongly support Approval voting seem to be promoting it
as a stepping stone to score voting. Yet, as indicated above, score
voting doesn't have any significant adoption, just some people promoting
its adoption.
Of course Approval voting, and possibly score voting, are better than
plurality voting, but that's a very low standard for comparison.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
