Open letter to STAR voting promoters
Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR voting
promoters.
Here's some background info for the benefit of election-method forum
readers:
In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will vote to approve or
defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting for electing Oregon
governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the Oregon secretary of
state). This referendum was passed by the Oregon state legislature!
This is huge! All other states that have adopted ranked choice voting
have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their
state's ballots.
Here's the full text of the referendum:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled
The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4. Importantly the
words do not mention anything about "overvotes." Also importantly it's
well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future. Also
it gives explicit permission to later adopt the single-transferable vote
(STV) for electing city-council members (which Portland recently
adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.
Note: The following "open letter" is long because election-method
reform is not a simple topic, and numerous misunderstandings are involved.
........................
Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:
The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on
the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the promoters of
STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing
mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming
statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice
voting for some Oregon elections.
I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting promoters, have
correctly identified relevant information.
-
Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history of promoting
misrepresentations. -
Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization was a big source of
money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed to Eugene voters. -
Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting initiative.
-
Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for "opposition" arguments
in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene voter. -
Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's pamphlet helped
defeat the STAR voting initiative.
(E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet:
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet )
However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are
overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR voting
was defeated.
Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
-
You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy, without
understanding they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots. -
Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the
unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when
a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round. Yet
your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff
step, which is not what they were criticizing. -
You seem to dismiss the important difference between your
single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the
single-transferable vote (STV). STV really does increase representation
for minorities, women, etc. In fact STV with three seats per district
(as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
percent of that district's voters. Yes, a single-winner method such as
STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
guarantee from zero to 50 percent. But that does not reach the higher
level that minorities want, and deserve. -
Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR voting
is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter
advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be used in Portland
in November to elect our city councilors. -
Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote
splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a
lie. This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.
If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting
avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the
same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote organization. -
The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR voting wasted lots
of words talking about issues that are not as important as the above
issues. In my opinion these minor issues include the size of summarized
ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the monotonicity
criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.
Clarification: Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends
where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and
where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted as a
single round of ballot marking and counting. However the
strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental
elections. That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating
their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.
Now let's talk about possible future collaborations, and barriers to
collaboration.
I too dislike the FairVote organization. I've been fighting against
them for three decades.
Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the fee (about $2,000 I
believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from me,
Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November referendum,
I will gladly accept their assistance.
Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission to use my name as
being in support of the upcoming November referendum, I will agree -- if
the promotion does not imply blind support for the FairVote organization
and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska elections yielded the
correct winner.
I'm open to this collaboration because they, the FairVote organization,
and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS are needed for
election-method reform.
Reaching areas of agreement, and working in collaboration, is how
election-method reform is going to happen.
This brings us to the core point in this letter.
"Voters must be allowed to mark two or more candidates at the same
preference level."
These are the words I spoke to the Oregon legislative "rules" committee
several years ago, back when the FairVote organization was attempting to
push their flawed idea of how they think ranked choice ballots should be
counted.
Because of your testimony against that flawed FairVote bill, and because
of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these bills later worked
with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically improved
wording that is now in the November referendum.
The referendum wording does not contain any mention of "overvotes."
This is huge! Of course "overvote" is FairVote's terminology for
marking two or more candidates in the same choice column.
This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take credit for
dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!
If you want, you can think of this refinement as a concession by the
fans of the FairVote organization.
Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is finally being exposed.
The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have the first statewide
Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can be using software
that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."
As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at the same preference
level, and when the counting reaches that pattern, that ballot can be
paired with another ballot that has the same equivalent pattern, and one
of those two ballots is counted as support for one of those two
candidates, and the other ballot is counted as support for the other
candidate. (Software can simulate this counting using decimal numbers
and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must not
use the decimal-number shortcut.)
The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical "overvotes"
is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded election
software can be tested. Writing software is easy, but getting it
certified requires certified data.
The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum wording calls this
"overvote" issue a "counting detail."
Why is this "counting detail" so important?
This software refinement eliminates a valid criticism that you, STAR
voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of instant-runoff voting.
Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR scholarly article where
the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice ballots
to be "user unfriendly." It's a misrepresentation because it does not
apply to ranked choice voting when mythical "overvotes" are correctly
counted. (There's another related user-friendly issue I'll get to shortly.)
(E-M forum aside: Here's a link to that scholarly article:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3 )
Yes, your "user unfriendly" criticism does apply when voters are told to
avoid "overvotes." Especially when a voter wants to rank a strongly
disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and there are not as many
choice columns as candidates.
However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted correctly, election data
will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots. That will undermine
part of your characterization of ranked choice ballots as being "user
unfriendly."
Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no "overvote" limitation will
allow a voter to RATE the candidates.
Just like on a score ballot!
This means the voters who think STAR ballots are easier to mark will be
able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it were a STAR ballot!
They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse the left-to-right
orientation difference -- and ignore the column labels -- words instead
of stars and numbers.
STAR voting fans correctly point out that some people prefer to think in
terms of ratings rather than rankings. (Other voters regard ratings as
more difficult to assign.)
When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a voter
can use either a rating or ranking approach, whichever they prefer!
To repeat, this correct counting of so-called overvotes is allowed by
the wording in November's referendum because it avoids saying anything
about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."
There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy, and you, the
promoters of STAR voting, agree. And where we disagree with the
FairVote organization.
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is not always the least
popular. This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and the
recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong winner.
You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy to see in Yee diagrams.
You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked choice ballots are "user
unfriendly." Specifically a close election can require some voters to
mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the fairest
("correct") election result.
Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user unfriendliness" will
disappear when better election software becomes available.
The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to defend the failures in
Burlington and Alaska. This is part of why lots of people like STAR
voting, and why they regard the FairVote organization as their enemy.
Fortunately the referendum wording is written clearly, in a way that
makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw in the future.
I believe that adding just two sentences might be sufficient to correct
this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle issue.
Specifically, the referendum's counting method can be changed to
implement Benham's method. Just add words such as: "If a round of
counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that candidate is elected; a
pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would win every one-on-one
contest against every remaining candidate."
Or, the wording can be changed to implement the Ranked Choice Including
Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method. In this case the added words would
say something like: "Pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when
they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose
every one-on-one contest against every remaining candidate."
The result would be an election method that overcomes the criticisms
against the version of instant-runoff voting that the FairVote
organization foolishly tries to defend.
Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can, with the addition of
two sentences, yield all the most significant election-method advantages
of STAR voting.
Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not welcome this
interpretation.
Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a
reasonably-well-designed method that significantly differs from what the
FairVote organization originally tried to push through the Oregon
legislature.
Now I'll discuss a concern.
I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters, might try to sabotage
the November referendum. That might be based on your belief that the
FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this referendum is an
opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene initiative.
Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all Oregon voters, the
majority of whom want a better election system. Remember it would hurt
Eugene voters too!
And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had to
vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of independent candidate
Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder. The referendum will
solve that vote-splitting problem.
In case it's important, I did not express opposition against the STAR
voting initiative. I remained neutral because I used to know lots of
people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a better election
system. (I agree that STAR voting is better than plurality.) In fact,
long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need to be using
"order-of-preference ballots." That was back in the mid 1990's, long
before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long before the name "ranked
choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many dances
in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived there. Getting
back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see how Eugene voters
would respond to your initiative.
The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge number of Eugene
voters correctly recognize that ranked choice ballots, with a
well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR ballots.
In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the November referendum
could lead to planet-wide suicide!
Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did all the coursework
for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at Oregon State University.
Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one of their climate
models. So I have known since the 1970s that our planet is in a very
bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice coverage at the north
and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which
increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the snow
and ice melt. That understanding is part of what motivates me to pursue
election-method reform with a sense of urgency.
Adopting a better election system is the tipping point that will switch
governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.
Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon after
we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon state
representatives. (That's the next step after adopting this referendum.)
(And consider that better economic prosperity will reduce
domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)
In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is giving us this huge
opportunity to implement election-method reform that will help
civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.
At the national level, higher levels of democracy will "uncrazify" our
crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with problem-solving
leaders. They will replace any members of Congress who persist in being
puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.
You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make this happen. You
pushed back against the FairVote organization's flawed version of
"their" vote-counting method so that Oregon election-method experts
could write a well-designed referendum.
I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of the funding to
promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of instant-runoff voting.
That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent me a clipping of the
article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting that
method. Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard
each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature. If
you should want to meet via video to ask any questions, I'm open to that
form of communication.
While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer I was reminded that
Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become Oregon governor because
of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley as a
spoiler candidate). That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have been
a great governor.
In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that, if
it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave, in
spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler candidate.
All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be proud of.
-
You have helped educate huge numbers of voters about the need for
better ballots. -
You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote splitting.
-
Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark more than one
candidate at the same preference level. -
You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie that the candidate
with the fewest transferred votes is always least popular.
Let's build on the election-method reform foundation we have been
building together throughout many years.
I look forward to working with you, rather than against you, as we take
advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has wisely
given to us.
We don't have time for any more misunderstandings. Glaciers are melting
faster than elections are being improved.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
Hi Richard! You might want to shorten this :) I skimmed it, but I might
have missed a few things. I have some questions.
First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? I really
doubt ballot design is the most important part of a reform proposal. From
what I can tell, there's a lot of research showing spoiled ballots are much
more common when ranking, even if you allow equal-ratings. Ranked ballots
still allow for skipped ranks and voters who misinterpret ranks as ratings.
There's a huge spike in the number of spoiled ballots when you have 4 or 5
candidates, because people mistake the rankings for a 1-4 or 1-5 scale.
(And lots of cities use cumulative voting for city councils, making things
more confusing!)
Second: if your complaint is that voters might exaggerate their ratings, I
don't see why this would be applicable to STAR, but not other systems
that allow equal-rankings. It's a dominant strategy in score, but STAR
isn't score, and the runoff prevents this.
Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR. Spoiler
effects, sure, because STAR fails IIA. But I think of vote-splitting as
meaning clone-negativity (whereas STAR is intentionally a bit
clone-positive, to encourage parties to run at least 2 candidates).
Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:41 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR voting
promoters.
Here's some background info for the benefit of election-method forum
readers:
In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will vote to approve or
defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting for electing Oregon
governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the Oregon secretary of
state). This referendum was passed by the Oregon state legislature!
This is huge! All other states that have adopted ranked choice voting
have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their
state's ballots.
Here's the full text of the referendum:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled
The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4. Importantly the
words do not mention anything about "overvotes." Also importantly it's
well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future. Also
it gives explicit permission to later adopt the single-transferable vote
(STV) for electing city-council members (which Portland recently
adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.
Note: The following "open letter" is long because election-method
reform is not a simple topic, and numerous misunderstandings are involved.
........................
Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:
The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on
the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the promoters of
STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing
mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming
statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice
voting for some Oregon elections.
I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting promoters, have
correctly identified relevant information.
-
Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history of promoting
misrepresentations. -
Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization was a big source of
money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed to Eugene voters. -
Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting initiative.
-
Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for "opposition" arguments
in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene voter. -
Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's pamphlet helped
defeat the STAR voting initiative.
(E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet:
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet )
However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are
overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR voting
was defeated.
Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
-
You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy, without
understanding they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots. -
Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the
unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when
a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round. Yet
your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff
step, which is not what they were criticizing. -
You seem to dismiss the important difference between your
single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the
single-transferable vote (STV). STV really does increase representation
for minorities, women, etc. In fact STV with three seats per district
(as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
percent of that district's voters. Yes, a single-winner method such as
STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
guarantee from zero to 50 percent. But that does not reach the higher
level that minorities want, and deserve. -
Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR voting
is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter
advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be used in Portland
in November to elect our city councilors. -
Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote
splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a
lie. This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.
If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting
avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the
same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote organization. -
The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR voting wasted lots
of words talking about issues that are not as important as the above
issues. In my opinion these minor issues include the size of summarized
ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the monotonicity
criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.
Clarification: Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends
where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and
where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted as a
single round of ballot marking and counting. However the
strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental
elections. That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating
their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.
Now let's talk about possible future collaborations, and barriers to
collaboration.
I too dislike the FairVote organization. I've been fighting against
them for three decades.
Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the fee (about $2,000 I
believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from me,
Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November referendum,
I will gladly accept their assistance.
Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission to use my name as
being in support of the upcoming November referendum, I will agree -- if
the promotion does not imply blind support for the FairVote organization
and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska elections yielded the
correct winner.
I'm open to this collaboration because they, the FairVote organization,
and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS are needed for
election-method reform.
Reaching areas of agreement, and working in collaboration, is how
election-method reform is going to happen.
This brings us to the core point in this letter.
"Voters must be allowed to mark two or more candidates at the same
preference level."
These are the words I spoke to the Oregon legislative "rules" committee
several years ago, back when the FairVote organization was attempting to
push their flawed idea of how they think ranked choice ballots should be
counted.
Because of your testimony against that flawed FairVote bill, and because
of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these bills later worked
with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically improved
wording that is now in the November referendum.
The referendum wording does not contain any mention of "overvotes."
This is huge! Of course "overvote" is FairVote's terminology for
marking two or more candidates in the same choice column.
This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take credit for
dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!
If you want, you can think of this refinement as a concession by the
fans of the FairVote organization.
Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is finally being exposed.
The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have the first statewide
Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can be using software
that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."
As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at the same preference
level, and when the counting reaches that pattern, that ballot can be
paired with another ballot that has the same equivalent pattern, and one
of those two ballots is counted as support for one of those two
candidates, and the other ballot is counted as support for the other
candidate. (Software can simulate this counting using decimal numbers
and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must not
use the decimal-number shortcut.)
The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical "overvotes"
is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded election
software can be tested. Writing software is easy, but getting it
certified requires certified data.
The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum wording calls this
"overvote" issue a "counting detail."
Why is this "counting detail" so important?
This software refinement eliminates a valid criticism that you, STAR
voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of instant-runoff voting.
Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR scholarly article where
the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice ballots
to be "user unfriendly." It's a misrepresentation because it does not
apply to ranked choice voting when mythical "overvotes" are correctly
counted. (There's another related user-friendly issue I'll get to
shortly.)
(E-M forum aside: Here's a link to that scholarly article:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3 )
Yes, your "user unfriendly" criticism does apply when voters are told to
avoid "overvotes." Especially when a voter wants to rank a strongly
disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and there are not as many
choice columns as candidates.
However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted correctly, election data
will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots. That will undermine
part of your characterization of ranked choice ballots as being "user
unfriendly."
Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no "overvote" limitation will
allow a voter to RATE the candidates.
Just like on a score ballot!
This means the voters who think STAR ballots are easier to mark will be
able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it were a STAR ballot!
They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse the left-to-right
orientation difference -- and ignore the column labels -- words instead
of stars and numbers.
STAR voting fans correctly point out that some people prefer to think in
terms of ratings rather than rankings. (Other voters regard ratings as
more difficult to assign.)
When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a voter
can use either a rating or ranking approach, whichever they prefer!
To repeat, this correct counting of so-called overvotes is allowed by
the wording in November's referendum because it avoids saying anything
about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."
There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy, and you, the
promoters of STAR voting, agree. And where we disagree with the
FairVote organization.
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is not always the least
popular. This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and the
recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong winner.
You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy to see in Yee
diagrams.
You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked choice ballots are "user
unfriendly." Specifically a close election can require some voters to
mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the fairest
("correct") election result.
Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user unfriendliness" will
disappear when better election software becomes available.
The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to defend the failures in
Burlington and Alaska. This is part of why lots of people like STAR
voting, and why they regard the FairVote organization as their enemy.
Fortunately the referendum wording is written clearly, in a way that
makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw in the future.
I believe that adding just two sentences might be sufficient to correct
this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle issue.
Specifically, the referendum's counting method can be changed to
implement Benham's method. Just add words such as: "If a round of
counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that candidate is elected; a
pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would win every one-on-one
contest against every remaining candidate."
Or, the wording can be changed to implement the Ranked Choice Including
Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method. In this case the added words would
say something like: "Pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when
they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose
every one-on-one contest against every remaining candidate."
The result would be an election method that overcomes the criticisms
against the version of instant-runoff voting that the FairVote
organization foolishly tries to defend.
Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can, with the addition of
two sentences, yield all the most significant election-method advantages
of STAR voting.
Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not welcome this
interpretation.
Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a
reasonably-well-designed method that significantly differs from what the
FairVote organization originally tried to push through the Oregon
legislature.
Now I'll discuss a concern.
I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters, might try to sabotage
the November referendum. That might be based on your belief that the
FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this referendum is an
opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene initiative.
Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all Oregon voters, the
majority of whom want a better election system. Remember it would hurt
Eugene voters too!
And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had to
vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of independent candidate
Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder. The referendum will
solve that vote-splitting problem.
In case it's important, I did not express opposition against the STAR
voting initiative. I remained neutral because I used to know lots of
people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a better election
system. (I agree that STAR voting is better than plurality.) In fact,
long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need to be using
"order-of-preference ballots." That was back in the mid 1990's, long
before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long before the name "ranked
choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many dances
in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived there. Getting
back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see how Eugene voters
would respond to your initiative.
The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge number of Eugene
voters correctly recognize that ranked choice ballots, with a
well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR ballots.
In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the November referendum
could lead to planet-wide suicide!
Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did all the coursework
for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at Oregon State University.
Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one of their climate
models. So I have known since the 1970s that our planet is in a very
bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice coverage at the north
and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which
increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the snow
and ice melt. That understanding is part of what motivates me to pursue
election-method reform with a sense of urgency.
Adopting a better election system is the tipping point that will switch
governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.
Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon after
we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon state
representatives. (That's the next step after adopting this referendum.)
(And consider that better economic prosperity will reduce
domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)
In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is giving us this huge
opportunity to implement election-method reform that will help
civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.
At the national level, higher levels of democracy will "uncrazify" our
crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with problem-solving
leaders. They will replace any members of Congress who persist in being
puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.
You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make this happen. You
pushed back against the FairVote organization's flawed version of
"their" vote-counting method so that Oregon election-method experts
could write a well-designed referendum.
I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of the funding to
promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of instant-runoff voting.
That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent me a clipping of the
article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting that
method. Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard
each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature. If
you should want to meet via video to ask any questions, I'm open to that
form of communication.
While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer I was reminded that
Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become Oregon governor because
of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley as a
spoiler candidate). That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have been
a great governor.
In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that, if
it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave, in
spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler candidate.
All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be proud of.
-
You have helped educate huge numbers of voters about the need for
better ballots. -
You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote splitting.
-
Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark more than one
candidate at the same preference level. -
You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie that the candidate
with the fewest transferred votes is always least popular.
Let's build on the election-method reform foundation we have been
building together throughout many years.
I look forward to working with you, rather than against you, as we take
advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has wisely
given to us.
We don't have time for any more misunderstandings. Glaciers are melting
faster than elections are being improved.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 06/03/2024 8:40 PM EDT Richard, the VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on
the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the promoters of
STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing
mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming
statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice
voting for some Oregon elections.
...
Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
...
- Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the
unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when
a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round.
This can happen with STAR for essentially the same reason it can happen with IRV when it's a close 3-way race. The hypothetical scenario I derived from the Burlington 2009 IRV data demonstrated this.
Yet your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff
step, which is not what they were criticizing.
Yes, what we are criticizing is the, for similar reasons, STAR and IRV will not put the Consistent Majority Candidate (the neologism that I am promoting for "Condorcet Winner") into the final runoff.
- You seem to dismiss the important difference between your
single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the
single-transferable vote (STV). STV really does increase representation
for minorities, women, etc. In fact STV with three seats per district
(as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
percent of that district's voters. Yes, a single-winner method such as
STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
guarantee from zero to 50 percent.
Bottoms-up IRV does not necessarily do that. It can help, but it does not necessarily prevent a 51% polarized majority from all ranking their party candidates 1, 2, 3 and getting all three elected with Bottoms-up IRV.
But that does not reach the higher level that minorities want,
and deserve.
Although this confuses some Vermont policy makers I have been in discussion with, they are surprized that I advocacy for Condorcet RCV did not extend to multi-winner elections, where at the moment I support Weighted-Inclusice-Gregory-Method (which might have another term for it), even though it is Hare-ish and does not practically allow for precinct summability.
I consistently point out the difference in nature of three kinds of election that FV promotes RCV as a "one-method-fits-all" solution:
-
Single-winner elections - then Majority Rule is the only way to honor our votes as equal. There is no proportionality to be had.) So Condorcet.
-
Multi-winner elections - equal-valued votes would mean Proportional Representation. So STV ... I still think Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method is the best suited to do that so far.
-
Proportional delegate apportionment for Presidential Primary elections - probably Bottoms-up STV with the Hare quota, no surplus votes being transferred. In this case we are looking at the same mathematical problem of apportionment to states of a fixed number of seats to the U.S. House of Representatives. Here the Huntington-Hill method has been shown to be optimal and has been used in the U.S. for eight decades. It should be the same method to allocate delegates to presidential candidates according to the vote.
- Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR voting
is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter
advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be used in Portland
in November to elect our city councilors.
BTW, FairVote is regularly playing the race card on this issue, too. They have retained the former Colorado Speaker of the House, a black man, to travel to legislatures and promote IRV with an obvious racial-inclusion appeal. FairVote shills have tried to use that to shame me when I was speaking in opposition to the same bill that they were promoting. The disingenuity is disturbing.
- Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote
splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a
lie.
I would use the term "falsehood".
This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.
As do those falsehoods coming from FairVote and from CES. Personally I am less put off by the equal.vote people.
If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting
avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the
same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote organization.
Yes.
Clarification: Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends
where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and
where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted as a
single round of ballot marking and counting. However the
strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental
elections.
Yup. If I enthusiastically support Candidate A and you support Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for B should count equally to my vote for A. My vote for A should not count more than your vote for B, just because my support is more enthusiastic.
That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating
their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.
This is what I have always said about Cardinal systems. We are partisans when we go to the poll and vote. Not Olympic figure-skating judges that are charged with the role of objectively rating candidates. We vote by secret ballot to promote our own political interest(s) and the equality of the effectiveness of our vote ("One person, one vote") is the constraint that makes our voting fair in this context of voting selfishly. And it goes directly to the inherent weakness of Cardinal systems:
There is much more content from Richard's post that I could respond to, but I won't here and now. This is already too long.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
VoteFair Guy:
Are you saying that the IRV that the November referendum would enact
allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.
That’s a yes or no question.
Yes or no?
…&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?
Does every one of your top-ranked candidates get a point (“vote”) from your
ballot, or does each of them get a useless little fraction of a vote
divided among them? …You know, split-vote in a method that you say doesn’t
have a split-vote problem.
An no, don’t embark on some long evasion or preface. I doubt that people
will be willing to search for your answer in a long mass of meaning-mystery
text.
The reason I ask is, you’ve been promoting the referendum as what it would
be if were something different from what it is.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 17:41 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR voting
promoters.
Here's some background info for the benefit of election-method forum
readers:
In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will vote to approve or
defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting for electing Oregon
governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the Oregon secretary of
state). This referendum was passed by the Oregon state legislature!
This is huge! All other states that have adopted ranked choice voting
have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their
state's ballots.
Here's the full text of the referendum:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled
The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4. Importantly the
words do not mention anything about "overvotes." Also importantly it's
well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future. Also
it gives explicit permission to later adopt the single-transferable vote
(STV) for electing city-council members (which Portland recently
adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.
Note: The following "open letter" is long because election-method
reform is not a simple topic, and numerous misunderstandings are involved.
........................
Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:
The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on
the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the promoters of
STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing
mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming
statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice
voting for some Oregon elections.
I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting promoters, have
correctly identified relevant information.
-
Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history of promoting
misrepresentations. -
Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization was a big source of
money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed to Eugene voters. -
Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting initiative.
-
Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for "opposition" arguments
in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene voter. -
Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's pamphlet helped
defeat the STAR voting initiative.
(E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet:
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet )
However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are
overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR voting
was defeated.
Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
-
You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy, without
understanding they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots. -
Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the
unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when
a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round. Yet
your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff
step, which is not what they were criticizing. -
You seem to dismiss the important difference between your
single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the
single-transferable vote (STV). STV really does increase representation
for minorities, women, etc. In fact STV with three seats per district
(as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
percent of that district's voters. Yes, a single-winner method such as
STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
guarantee from zero to 50 percent. But that does not reach the higher
level that minorities want, and deserve. -
Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR voting
is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter
advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be used in Portland
in November to elect our city councilors. -
Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote
splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a
lie. This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.
If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting
avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the
same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote organization. -
The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR voting wasted lots
of words talking about issues that are not as important as the above
issues. In my opinion these minor issues include the size of summarized
ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the monotonicity
criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.
Clarification: Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends
where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and
where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted as a
single round of ballot marking and counting. However the
strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental
elections. That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating
their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.
Now let's talk about possible future collaborations, and barriers to
collaboration.
I too dislike the FairVote organization. I've been fighting against
them for three decades.
Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the fee (about $2,000 I
believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from me,
Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November referendum,
I will gladly accept their assistance.
Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission to use my name as
being in support of the upcoming November referendum, I will agree -- if
the promotion does not imply blind support for the FairVote organization
and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska elections yielded the
correct winner.
I'm open to this collaboration because they, the FairVote organization,
and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS are needed for
election-method reform.
Reaching areas of agreement, and working in collaboration, is how
election-method reform is going to happen.
This brings us to the core point in this letter.
"Voters must be allowed to mark two or more candidates at the same
preference level."
These are the words I spoke to the Oregon legislative "rules" committee
several years ago, back when the FairVote organization was attempting to
push their flawed idea of how they think ranked choice ballots should be
counted.
Because of your testimony against that flawed FairVote bill, and because
of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these bills later worked
with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically improved
wording that is now in the November referendum.
The referendum wording does not contain any mention of "overvotes."
This is huge! Of course "overvote" is FairVote's terminology for
marking two or more candidates in the same choice column.
This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take credit for
dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!
If you want, you can think of this refinement as a concession by the
fans of the FairVote organization.
Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is finally being exposed.
The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have the first statewide
Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can be using software
that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."
As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at the same preference
level, and when the counting reaches that pattern, that ballot can be
paired with another ballot that has the same equivalent pattern, and one
of those two ballots is counted as support for one of those two
candidates, and the other ballot is counted as support for the other
candidate. (Software can simulate this counting using decimal numbers
and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must not
use the decimal-number shortcut.)
The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical "overvotes"
is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded election
software can be tested. Writing software is easy, but getting it
certified requires certified data.
The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum wording calls this
"overvote" issue a "counting detail."
Why is this "counting detail" so important?
This software refinement eliminates a valid criticism that you, STAR
voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of instant-runoff voting.
Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR scholarly article where
the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice ballots
to be "user unfriendly." It's a misrepresentation because it does not
apply to ranked choice voting when mythical "overvotes" are correctly
counted. (There's another related user-friendly issue I'll get to
shortly.)
(E-M forum aside: Here's a link to that scholarly article:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3 )
Yes, your "user unfriendly" criticism does apply when voters are told to
avoid "overvotes." Especially when a voter wants to rank a strongly
disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and there are not as many
choice columns as candidates.
However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted correctly, election data
will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots. That will undermine
part of your characterization of ranked choice ballots as being "user
unfriendly."
Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no "overvote" limitation will
allow a voter to RATE the candidates.
Just like on a score ballot!
This means the voters who think STAR ballots are easier to mark will be
able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it were a STAR ballot!
They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse the left-to-right
orientation difference -- and ignore the column labels -- words instead
of stars and numbers.
STAR voting fans correctly point out that some people prefer to think in
terms of ratings rather than rankings. (Other voters regard ratings as
more difficult to assign.)
When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a voter
can use either a rating or ranking approach, whichever they prefer!
To repeat, this correct counting of so-called overvotes is allowed by
the wording in November's referendum because it avoids saying anything
about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."
There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy, and you, the
promoters of STAR voting, agree. And where we disagree with the
FairVote organization.
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is not always the least
popular. This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and the
recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong winner.
You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy to see in Yee
diagrams.
You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked choice ballots are "user
unfriendly." Specifically a close election can require some voters to
mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the fairest
("correct") election result.
Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user unfriendliness" will
disappear when better election software becomes available.
The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to defend the failures in
Burlington and Alaska. This is part of why lots of people like STAR
voting, and why they regard the FairVote organization as their enemy.
Fortunately the referendum wording is written clearly, in a way that
makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw in the future.
I believe that adding just two sentences might be sufficient to correct
this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle issue.
Specifically, the referendum's counting method can be changed to
implement Benham's method. Just add words such as: "If a round of
counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that candidate is elected; a
pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would win every one-on-one
contest against every remaining candidate."
Or, the wording can be changed to implement the Ranked Choice Including
Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method. In this case the added words would
say something like: "Pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when
they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose
every one-on-one contest against every remaining candidate."
The result would be an election method that overcomes the criticisms
against the version of instant-runoff voting that the FairVote
organization foolishly tries to defend.
Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can, with the addition of
two sentences, yield all the most significant election-method advantages
of STAR voting.
Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not welcome this
interpretation.
Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a
reasonably-well-designed method that significantly differs from what the
FairVote organization originally tried to push through the Oregon
legislature.
Now I'll discuss a concern.
I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters, might try to sabotage
the November referendum. That might be based on your belief that the
FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this referendum is an
opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene initiative.
Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all Oregon voters, the
majority of whom want a better election system. Remember it would hurt
Eugene voters too!
And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had to
vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of independent candidate
Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder. The referendum will
solve that vote-splitting problem.
In case it's important, I did not express opposition against the STAR
voting initiative. I remained neutral because I used to know lots of
people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a better election
system. (I agree that STAR voting is better than plurality.) In fact,
long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need to be using
"order-of-preference ballots." That was back in the mid 1990's, long
before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long before the name "ranked
choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many dances
in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived there. Getting
back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see how Eugene voters
would respond to your initiative.
The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge number of Eugene
voters correctly recognize that ranked choice ballots, with a
well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR ballots.
In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the November referendum
could lead to planet-wide suicide!
Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did all the coursework
for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at Oregon State University.
Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one of their climate
models. So I have known since the 1970s that our planet is in a very
bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice coverage at the north
and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which
increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the snow
and ice melt. That understanding is part of what motivates me to pursue
election-method reform with a sense of urgency.
Adopting a better election system is the tipping point that will switch
governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.
Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon after
we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon state
representatives. (That's the next step after adopting this referendum.)
(And consider that better economic prosperity will reduce
domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)
In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is giving us this huge
opportunity to implement election-method reform that will help
civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.
At the national level, higher levels of democracy will "uncrazify" our
crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with problem-solving
leaders. They will replace any members of Congress who persist in being
puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.
You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make this happen. You
pushed back against the FairVote organization's flawed version of
"their" vote-counting method so that Oregon election-method experts
could write a well-designed referendum.
I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of the funding to
promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of instant-runoff voting.
That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent me a clipping of the
article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting that
method. Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard
each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature. If
you should want to meet via video to ask any questions, I'm open to that
form of communication.
While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer I was reminded that
Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become Oregon governor because
of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley as a
spoiler candidate). That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have been
a great governor.
In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that, if
it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave, in
spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler candidate.
All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be proud of.
-
You have helped educate huge numbers of voters about the need for
better ballots. -
You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote splitting.
-
Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark more than one
candidate at the same preference level. -
You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie that the candidate
with the fewest transferred votes is always least popular.
Let's build on the election-method reform foundation we have been
building together throughout many years.
I look forward to working with you, rather than against you, as we take
advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has wisely
given to us.
We don't have time for any more misunderstandings. Glaciers are melting
faster than elections are being improved.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Are you saying that the IRV that the November referendum would enact
allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.
YES
…&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?
It avoids this "counting detail" by not mentioning anything about it.
Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy
On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
VoteFair Guy:
Are you saying that the IRV that the November referendum would enact
allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.
That’s a yes or no question.
Yes or no?
…&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?
Does every one of your top-ranked candidates get a point (“vote”) from
your ballot, or does each of them get a useless little fraction of a
vote divided among them? …You know, split-vote in a method that you say
doesn’t have a split-vote problem.
An no, don’t embark on some long evasion or preface. I doubt that people
will be willing to search for your answer in a long mass of
meaning-mystery text.
The reason I ask is, you’ve been promoting the referendum as what it
would be if were something different from what it is.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 17:41 Richard, the VoteFair guy
<electionmethods@votefair.org mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR voting
promoters.
Here's some background info for the benefit of election-method forum
readers:
In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will vote to approve or
defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting for electing
Oregon
governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the Oregon secretary of
state). This referendum was passed by the Oregon state legislature!
This is huge! All other states that have adopted ranked choice voting
have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their
state's ballots.
Here's the full text of the referendum:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled <https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2004/Enrolled>
The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4. Importantly
the
words do not mention anything about "overvotes." Also importantly it's
well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future. Also
it gives explicit permission to later adopt the single-transferable
vote
(STV) for electing city-council members (which Portland recently
adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.
Note: The following "open letter" is long because election-method
reform is not a simple topic, and numerous misunderstandings are
involved.
........................
Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:
The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on
the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the
promoters of
STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing
mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming
statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice
voting for some Oregon elections.
I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting promoters, have
correctly identified relevant information.
* Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history of promoting
misrepresentations.
* Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization was a big source of
money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed to Eugene voters.
* Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting initiative.
* Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for "opposition" arguments
in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene voter.
* Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's pamphlet helped
defeat the STAR voting initiative.
(E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet:
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet <https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74017/0524-Voters-Pamphlet> )
However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are
overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR voting
was defeated.
Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
* You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy, without
understanding they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots.
* Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the
unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when
a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round. Yet
your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff
step, which is not what they were criticizing.
* You seem to dismiss the important difference between your
single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the
single-transferable vote (STV). STV really does increase
representation
for minorities, women, etc. In fact STV with three seats per district
(as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
percent of that district's voters. Yes, a single-winner method such as
STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
guarantee from zero to 50 percent. But that does not reach the higher
level that minorities want, and deserve.
* Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR
voting
is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter
advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be used in Portland
in November to elect our city councilors.
* Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote
splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a
lie. This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims.
If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting
avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the
same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote
organization.
* The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR voting wasted lots
of words talking about issues that are not as important as the above
issues. In my opinion these minor issues include the size of
summarized
ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the monotonicity
criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.
Clarification: Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends
where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and
where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted
as a
single round of ballot marking and counting. However the
strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental
elections. That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating
their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.
Now let's talk about possible future collaborations, and barriers to
collaboration.
I too dislike the FairVote organization. I've been fighting against
them for three decades.
Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the fee (about $2,000 I
believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from me,
Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November referendum,
I will gladly accept their assistance.
Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission to use my name as
being in support of the upcoming November referendum, I will agree
-- if
the promotion does not imply blind support for the FairVote
organization
and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska elections yielded the
correct winner.
I'm open to this collaboration because they, the FairVote organization,
and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS are needed
for
election-method reform.
Reaching areas of agreement, and working in collaboration, is how
election-method reform is going to happen.
This brings us to the core point in this letter.
"Voters must be allowed to mark two or more candidates at the same
preference level."
These are the words I spoke to the Oregon legislative "rules" committee
several years ago, back when the FairVote organization was
attempting to
push their flawed idea of how they think ranked choice ballots
should be
counted.
Because of your testimony against that flawed FairVote bill, and
because
of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these bills later worked
with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically improved
wording that is now in the November referendum.
The referendum wording does not contain any mention of "overvotes."
This is huge! Of course "overvote" is FairVote's terminology for
marking two or more candidates in the same choice column.
This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take credit for
dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!
If you want, you can think of this refinement as a concession by the
fans of the FairVote organization.
Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is finally being exposed.
The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have the first statewide
Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can be using software
that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."
As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at the same preference
level, and when the counting reaches that pattern, that ballot can be
paired with another ballot that has the same equivalent pattern, and
one
of those two ballots is counted as support for one of those two
candidates, and the other ballot is counted as support for the other
candidate. (Software can simulate this counting using decimal numbers
and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must not
use the decimal-number shortcut.)
The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical "overvotes"
is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded election
software can be tested. Writing software is easy, but getting it
certified requires certified data.
The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum wording calls this
"overvote" issue a "counting detail."
Why is this "counting detail" so important?
This software refinement eliminates a valid criticism that you, STAR
voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of instant-runoff
voting.
Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR scholarly article where
the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice ballots
to be "user unfriendly." It's a misrepresentation because it does not
apply to ranked choice voting when mythical "overvotes" are correctly
counted. (There's another related user-friendly issue I'll get to
shortly.)
(E-M forum aside: Here's a link to that scholarly article:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3> )
Yes, your "user unfriendly" criticism does apply when voters are
told to
avoid "overvotes." Especially when a voter wants to rank a strongly
disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and there are not as
many
choice columns as candidates.
However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted correctly, election
data
will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots. That will undermine
part of your characterization of ranked choice ballots as being "user
unfriendly."
Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no "overvote" limitation will
allow a voter to RATE the candidates.
Just like on a score ballot!
This means the voters who think STAR ballots are easier to mark will be
able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it were a STAR ballot!
They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse the left-to-right
orientation difference -- and ignore the column labels -- words instead
of stars and numbers.
STAR voting fans correctly point out that some people prefer to
think in
terms of ratings rather than rankings. (Other voters regard ratings as
more difficult to assign.)
When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a voter
can use either a rating or ranking approach, whichever they prefer!
To repeat, this correct counting of so-called overvotes is allowed by
the wording in November's referendum because it avoids saying anything
about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."
There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy, and you, the
promoters of STAR voting, agree. And where we disagree with the
FairVote organization.
The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is not always the least
popular. This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and the
recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong winner.
You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy to see in Yee
diagrams.
You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked choice ballots are
"user
unfriendly." Specifically a close election can require some voters to
mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the fairest
("correct") election result.
Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user unfriendliness" will
disappear when better election software becomes available.
The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to defend the failures in
Burlington and Alaska. This is part of why lots of people like STAR
voting, and why they regard the FairVote organization as their enemy.
Fortunately the referendum wording is written clearly, in a way that
makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw in the future.
I believe that adding just two sentences might be sufficient to correct
this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle issue.
Specifically, the referendum's counting method can be changed to
implement Benham's method. Just add words such as: "If a round of
counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that candidate is elected; a
pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would win every
one-on-one
contest against every remaining candidate."
Or, the wording can be changed to implement the Ranked Choice Including
Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method. In this case the added words
would
say something like: "Pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when
they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose
every one-on-one contest against every remaining candidate."
The result would be an election method that overcomes the criticisms
against the version of instant-runoff voting that the FairVote
organization foolishly tries to defend.
Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can, with the addition of
two sentences, yield all the most significant election-method
advantages
of STAR voting.
Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not welcome this
interpretation.
Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a
reasonably-well-designed method that significantly differs from what
the
FairVote organization originally tried to push through the Oregon
legislature.
Now I'll discuss a concern.
I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters, might try to
sabotage
the November referendum. That might be based on your belief that the
FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this referendum is an
opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene initiative.
Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all Oregon voters, the
majority of whom want a better election system. Remember it would hurt
Eugene voters too!
And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had to
vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of independent
candidate
Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder. The referendum
will
solve that vote-splitting problem.
In case it's important, I did not express opposition against the STAR
voting initiative. I remained neutral because I used to know lots of
people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a better election
system. (I agree that STAR voting is better than plurality.) In fact,
long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need to be using
"order-of-preference ballots." That was back in the mid 1990's, long
before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long before the name "ranked
choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many dances
in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived there. Getting
back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see how Eugene voters
would respond to your initiative.
The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge number of Eugene
voters correctly recognize that ranked choice ballots, with a
well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR ballots.
In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the November referendum
could lead to planet-wide suicide!
Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did all the coursework
for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at Oregon State
University.
Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National Center for
Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one of their climate
models. So I have known since the 1970s that our planet is in a very
bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice coverage at the north
and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which
increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the snow
and ice melt. That understanding is part of what motivates me to
pursue
election-method reform with a sense of urgency.
Adopting a better election system is the tipping point that will switch
governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.
Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon after
we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon state
representatives. (That's the next step after adopting this
referendum.)
(And consider that better economic prosperity will reduce
domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)
In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is giving us this huge
opportunity to implement election-method reform that will help
civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.
At the national level, higher levels of democracy will "uncrazify" our
crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with problem-solving
leaders. They will replace any members of Congress who persist in
being
puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.
You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make this happen. You
pushed back against the FairVote organization's flawed version of
"their" vote-counting method so that Oregon election-method experts
could write a well-designed referendum.
I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of the funding to
promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of instant-runoff voting.
That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent me a clipping of the
article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting that
method. Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard
each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature. If
you should want to meet via video to ask any questions, I'm open to
that
form of communication.
While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer I was reminded
that
Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become Oregon governor because
of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley as a
spoiler candidate). That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have been
a great governor.
In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that, if
it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave, in
spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler candidate.
All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be proud of.
* You have helped educate huge numbers of voters about the need for
better ballots.
* You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote splitting.
* Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark more than one
candidate at the same preference level.
* You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie that the candidate
with the fewest transferred votes is always least popular.
Let's build on the election-method reform foundation we have been
building together throughout many years.
I look forward to working with you, rather than against you, as we take
advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has wisely
given to us.
We don't have time for any more misunderstandings. Glaciers are
melting
faster than elections are being improved.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
<https://electorama.com/em> for list info
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 8:41 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots.
Score ballots are superior to ranked ballots. They are easier to fill
out. They allow expression of strength of preference and indifference.
They stay the same from one election to the next, regardless of the number
of candidates. They don't require limiting your rankings to top 5 for space
in an election with 20 candidates, etc. etc.
On 06/04/2024 11:57 AM EDT Richard, the VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
On 6/4/2024 4:53 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Are you saying that the IRV that the November referendum would enact
allows & counts equal ranking of several candidates.
YES
…&, if it’s “Yes”, then how does it count that equal ranking?
It avoids this "counting detail" by not mentioning anything about it.
Well, that's just fucked. You can't have legislation without dealing with that detail. No IRV legislation I have ever seen anywhere ever allows for equal ranking of candidates. Only unranked candidates are tied for last place on the ballot. (This includes BTR-IRV which is "Condorcet consistent".)
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On 06/04/2024 12:22 PM EDT fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 8:41 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots.
Score ballots are superior to ranked ballots.
Not for governmental elections. Elections are not about utility. Not utilitarian. We are partisans that vote by secret ballot and not judges for the Figure Skating event at the Olympics. When we vote, we don't have to be "fair to the other side".
We vote to best serve our own political interests. It's a battle of sorts. They call them "campaigns".
They are easier to fill out.
That's horseshit. Requires voters to not only say who they prefer over the others, but then they have to figure out how much they prefer that candidate over the others and then they have to figure out whether or not they're shooting themselves in the foot by ranking some second-choice (or lesser evil) higher or lower. In any Cardinal system and whenever there are 3 or more candidates (especially if they are non-trivial candidates), the voter is faced with the decision of how much to score (or whether to approve) their second-choice (or lesser evil) candidate. Score them too high and you hurt your favorite. Score too low and you help your greater evil.
You CES guys keep repeating this falsehood with zero evidence. And it doesn't even make common sense.
They allow expression of strength of preference and indifference.
Yes. And that expression will be exaggerated by partisans. And the timid that worry about the greater evil might be pressured to reduce that expression.
And Approval ballots are Score ballots, with two levels of scoring. How much expression is there? The amount of expressivity of Score ballots is related to how many levels of scoring is there. More levels, more expressivity. Why not have 100 levels? My vote for Candidate Whoever is the sqrt(3). Can we get fractional-resolution in expressivity?
There is the Paradox of Choice problem. At some point, more degree of choice makes it harder to choose.
They stay the same from one election to the next, regardless of the number of candidates. They don't require limiting your rankings to top 5 for space in an election with 20 candidates, etc. etc.
Ordinal ballots stay the same, too.
This whole thing is just baloney: Claim followed by claim followed by claim. Nothing really backing it up.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Yep... I think that, even if we decided to use a ranked voting system, we
should run it off of rated ballots. Simpler to understand, and lets voters
indicate things like "I hate all the candidates". If that information is
tallied and displayed, you can use it to prove that a winner is unpopular,
which helps you recruit more candidates in the future.
We can disagree on the best counting method after we've completed the
ballots, which might involve just turning them into rankings. But I don't
see how the ballot design itself is that important, or how score ballots
would be worse when you can convert them into ranking information.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:35 AM fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 8:41 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
they are basically just supplying money to the huge(!)
number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked choice ballots are
much better than STAR ballots.
Score ballots are superior to ranked ballots. They are easier to fill
out. They allow expression of strength of preference and indifference.
They stay the same from one election to the next, regardless of the number
of candidates. They don't require limiting your rankings to top 5 for space
in an election with 20 candidates, etc. etc.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
rb-j: your complaints all seem to be about score voting, not rated ballots.
Rated ballots can be used to execute a ranked voting algorithm.