Hay listen, people project all the time.  Or, at least, often.  It's nothing new.No one has to engage him.  Why not just let him blather to himself?But, it *is* interesting that both Approval and IRV  advocates like to repeat the same false claim.  The 50%+ majorities are guaranteed.  An old lie of FairVote.  The denominator of the fraction disenfranchises voters with "exhausted ballots".Powered by Cricket Wireless------ Original message------From: Michael GarmanDate: Sat, Jun 8, 2024 08:16To: Michael Ossipoff;Cc: EM list;Evangeline Moore;Subject:Re: [EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting resultsShould I care what you think about anything? Considering you repeat the same bigoted assertions — to use your term — ad nauseam, I’m inclined not to. On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:32 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 20:32 Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:The results were still reported incorrectly. That doesn’t inspire c onfidence in the system!Should I care what you hav confidence in?If you don’t have confidence in counting approvals, when the only errors didn’t include any wrong winners, then I don’t blame you for especially having no confidence in IRV, whose much longer & more elaborate count was bungled badly enough to elect the wrong winners. I won’t keep replying to Michael G. on this conversation forever. Surely his need to be blocked is obvious. keep repeating your delusional conspiracy theories about 2000 and 2004. By your own standards, that’s bigoted assertion, not discussion. On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:26 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:For one thing the errors didn’t wrongly report winners. The correct winners were elected.Unlike some errors in which IRV elected the wrong people.…not quite the same thing :-)Count-fraud wouldn’t be worth the trouble if it didn’t do that too.The mountain of evidence reported by Harpers would be unlikely to be acciden tal error :-)Especially given that a voting-machine supplier promised to “deliver” the election to G.W. Bush.For details or substantiation I refer you to the Harpers articles after G. W. Bush’s two elections, in 2000 & 2004.On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 19:46 Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:Turns out approval has its own counting vulnerabilities. I hope someone lets Harper’s magazine know! On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:42 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for the information. Though some of us will write to them about the mis-reporting, I hope that you will too, or already have. They should definitely hear from the person who noticed it, & not just 2nd-hand.It’s a relief that the winners have been correctly reported.Again, thank you for pointing that error out.On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 05:28 Evangeline Moore <evangeline.moore@ih21.org> wrote:Hi everyone,I work at a Czech institute researching voting methods, and a while back I took an intere st in the approval voting elections in Fargo. While I was running the numbers, trying to build a model for a separate project, I noticed that the approval vote results have never been accurately reported in Fargo. The winners are right, but the percentages are not. They've never crossed 50% approval despite being widely reported that way.I posted an explanation of this on our website: https://www.ih21.org/aktuality/approval-voting-in-fargo When I realized that another election is coming up and that, as far as I can tell, nobody else has made the methodology publicly known yet, I wanted to get this out there. I also thought you guys might find it interesting. EM ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

I don't think any advocate of approval has ever claimed the winner of an approval election is guaranteed to cross the 50% line. On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:23 AM robert bristow-johnson < rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > > Hay listen, people project all the time. Or, at least, often. It's > nothing new. > > No one has to engage him. Why not just let him blather to himself? > > But, it *is* interesting that both Approval and IRV advocates like to > repeat the same false claim. The 50%+ majorities are guaranteed. An old > lie of FairVote. The denominator of the fraction disenfranchises voters > with "exhausted ballots". > > > *Powered by Cricket Wireless* > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Michael Garman > *Date: *Sat, Jun 8, 2024 08:16 > *To: *Michael Ossipoff; > *Cc: *EM list;Evangeline Moore; > *Subject:*Re: [EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results > > Should I care what you think about anything? Considering you repeat the > same bigoted assertions — to use your term — ad nauseam, I’m inclined not > to. > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:32 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 20:32 Michael Garman < >> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >> >>> The results were still reported incorrectly. That doesn’t inspire >>> confidence in the system! >>> >> >> Should I care what you hav confidence in? >> >> If you don’t have confidence in counting approvals, when the only errors >> didn’t include any wrong winners, then I don’t blame you for especially >> having no confidence in IRV, whose much longer & more elaborate count was >> bungled badly enough to elect the wrong winners.&nbsp ; >> >> I won’t keep replying to Michael G. on this conversation forever. >> >> Surely his need to be blocked is obvious. >> >> >> >> >> >>> keep repeating your delusional conspiracy theories about 2000 and 2004. >>> By your own standards, that’s bigoted assertion, not discussion. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:26 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For one thing the errors didn’t wrongly report winners. The correct >>>> winners were elected. >>>> >>>> Unlike some errors in which IRV elected the wrong people. >>>> >>>> …not quite the same thing :-) >>>> >>>> Count-fraud wouldn’t be worth the trouble if it didn’t do that too. >>>> >>>> The mountain of evidence reported by Harpers would be unlikely to be >>>> accidental error :-) >>>> >>>> Especially given that a voting-machine supplier promised to “deliver” >>>> the election to G.W. Bush. >>>> >>>> For details or substantiation I refer you to the Harpers articles after >>>> G. W. Bush’s two elections, in 2000 & 2004. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 19:46 Michael Garman < >>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Turns out approval has its own counting vulnerabilities. I hope >>>>> someone lets Harper’s magazine know! >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:42 PM Michael Ossipoff < >>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the information. Though some of us will write to them >>>>>> about the mis-reporting, I hope that you will too, or already have. They >>>>>> should definitely hear from the person who noticed it, & not just 2nd-hand. >>>>>> >>>>>> It’s a relief that the winners have been correctly reported. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, thank you for pointing that error out. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 05:28 Evangeline Moore < >>>>>> evangeline.moore@ih21.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I work at a Czech institute researching voting methods, and a while >>>>>>> back I took an interest in the approval voting elections in Fargo. While I >>>>>>> was running the numbers, trying to build a model for a separate project, I >>>>>>> noticed that the approval vote results have never been accurately reported >>>>>>> in Fargo. The winners are ri ght, but the percentages are not. They've >>>>>>> never crossed 50% approval despite being widely reported that way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I posted an explanation of this on our website: >>>>>>> https://www.ih21.org/aktuality/approval-voting-in-fargo When I >>>>>>> realized that another election is coming up and that, as far as I can tell, >>>>>>> nobody else has made the methodology publicly known yet, I wanted to get >>>>>>> this out there. I also thought you guys might find it interesting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EM >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> 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 >