Hi,
Guest
Open letter to STAR voting promoters
RT
Richard, the VoteFair guy
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 5:34 PM
On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...
Multiple reasons. Here are a few:
-
Lots of voters, including me, have difficulty thinking in terms of
ratings for governmental elections. Even movie ratings are head
scratchers for me. If I enjoyed a movie I give it 5 stars, if I hated a
comedy movie that didn't even make me smile I give it 1 star, if I hated
a movie with a bad plot and bad acting I give it 1 star, sometimes I'll
give a movie 4 stars, otherwise I don't rate it because I can't decide
how I should rate it. Especially if the flaw was my failure to
recognize that it's a kind of movie I don't like (such as thriller,
horror, etc.) but which other people would like. -
Although star ratings on Amazon and movies are very familiar, it's the
calculated overall ratings that are familiar. When someone chooses how
to rate a product or movie, lots of us don't know how to rate it in a
way that really summarizes that we like some aspects and dislike other
aspects. -
Every cardinal/rating method I know of is vulnerable to what used to
be called a "drama queen" meaning someone who exaggerates importance.
Expressed another way ... -
Rating methods are vulnerable to what I'm calling the "clapping
tactic." In a talent/costume contest where the winner is based on the
loudness of clapping, I get extra influence by just pretending to clap
-- with no sound -- for the contestants I don't want to win. Of course
I clap loudly for the one or two contestants I want to win. Of course
this would become approval voting if everyone did it. -
It's easy for me to mark a ranked choice ballot. That's because I can
easily recognize which candidate I like better between any two
candidates. If I can't decide which I like better, I rank them the same
-- if the ballot instructions don't tell me to avoid mythical "overvotes." -
Ranked choice ballots can be marked as a rating ballot -- IF the same
choice column can be marked more than once. It's just FairVote's
primitive idea of ignoring "overvotes" that prevents a voter from
"rating" two candidates the same on a ranked choice ballot. In
contrast, a rating ballot cannot be marked as a ranked choice ballot
without losing influence that's available by skipping some choice columns.
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.
The top-two runoff in STAR just modifies the exaggeration tactic. In
Score the tactic is to only mark the highest and lowest ratings. In
STAR, a simple tactic is to avoid marking level 2 and level 3. This
allows the voter to have influence during the runoff if the runoff is
between their level zero and level 1 candidates, and it provides
influence between the voter's level 4 and level 5 candidates.
More sophisticated marking tactics become available to an organization
(to recommend to their members) by hiring pollsters plus vote-counting
experts such as those of us who participate in this E-M forum. This
strategizing doesn't work if ranked choice ballots are used with a good
counting method.
Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR.
I too "have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR."
STAR fans are claiming that IRV is vulnerable to vote splitting!
They do not offer any evidence to support this claim. Even in the
scholarly article by Quinn, Wolk, & Ogren, they present this implied
association without any evidence. Nor does the article suggest what
they want the words "vote splitting" to mean.
My question is, how can IRV be vulnerable to vote splitting without STAR
also being vulnerable to vote splitting? (Humor warning; That's
splitting hairs!)
Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.
Why didn't they advocate STAR-PR for electing Eugene city council members?
That's what minorities and women want. And employees would like it for
fighting against money-backed employers. And tenants would like it for
fighting against money-backed landlords.
Instead the STAR initiative was to continue with single-winner
elections. Ten years ago this single-winner reform would have been a
worthwhile reform. Now, with Portland already having adopted STV
starting with this year's November election, single-winner methods are
becoming recognized as obsolete for city councils and, hopefully soon,
state legislatures.
Thank you for your questions!
Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy
On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
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 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 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...
Multiple reasons. Here are a few:
* Lots of voters, including me, have difficulty thinking in terms of
ratings for governmental elections. Even movie ratings are head
scratchers for me. If I enjoyed a movie I give it 5 stars, if I hated a
comedy movie that didn't even make me smile I give it 1 star, if I hated
a movie with a bad plot and bad acting I give it 1 star, sometimes I'll
give a movie 4 stars, otherwise I don't rate it because I can't decide
how I should rate it. Especially if the flaw was my failure to
recognize that it's a kind of movie I don't like (such as thriller,
horror, etc.) but which other people would like.
* Although star ratings on Amazon and movies are very familiar, it's the
calculated overall ratings that are familiar. When someone chooses how
to rate a product or movie, lots of us don't know how to rate it in a
way that really summarizes that we like some aspects and dislike other
aspects.
* Every cardinal/rating method I know of is vulnerable to what used to
be called a "drama queen" meaning someone who exaggerates importance.
Expressed another way ...
* Rating methods are vulnerable to what I'm calling the "clapping
tactic." In a talent/costume contest where the winner is based on the
loudness of clapping, I get extra influence by just pretending to clap
-- with no sound -- for the contestants I don't want to win. Of course
I clap loudly for the one or two contestants I want to win. Of course
this would become approval voting if everyone did it.
* It's easy for me to mark a ranked choice ballot. That's because I can
easily recognize which candidate I like better between any two
candidates. If I can't decide which I like better, I rank them the same
-- if the ballot instructions don't tell me to avoid mythical "overvotes."
* Ranked choice ballots can be marked as a rating ballot -- IF the same
choice column can be marked more than once. It's just FairVote's
primitive idea of ignoring "overvotes" that prevents a voter from
"rating" two candidates the same on a ranked choice ballot. In
contrast, a rating ballot cannot be marked as a ranked choice ballot
without losing influence that's available by skipping some choice columns.
> 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.
The top-two runoff in STAR just modifies the exaggeration tactic. In
Score the tactic is to only mark the highest and lowest ratings. In
STAR, a simple tactic is to avoid marking level 2 and level 3. This
allows the voter to have influence during the runoff if the runoff is
between their level zero and level 1 candidates, and it provides
influence between the voter's level 4 and level 5 candidates.
More sophisticated marking tactics become available to an organization
(to recommend to their members) by hiring pollsters plus vote-counting
experts such as those of us who participate in this E-M forum. This
strategizing doesn't work if ranked choice ballots are used with a good
counting method.
> Third: I have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR.
I too "have no idea how vote-splitting would be a thing in STAR."
STAR fans are claiming that IRV is vulnerable to vote splitting!
They do not offer any evidence to support this claim. Even in the
scholarly article by Quinn, Wolk, & Ogren, they present this implied
association without any evidence. Nor does the article suggest what
they want the words "vote splitting" to mean.
My question is, how can IRV be vulnerable to vote splitting without STAR
also being vulnerable to vote splitting? (Humor warning; That's
splitting hairs!)
> Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
> algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.
Why didn't they advocate STAR-PR for electing Eugene city council members?
That's what minorities and women want. And employees would like it for
fighting against money-backed employers. And tenants would like it for
fighting against money-backed landlords.
Instead the STAR initiative was to continue with single-winner
elections. Ten years ago this single-winner reform would have been a
worthwhile reform. Now, with Portland already having adopted STV
starting with this year's November election, single-winner methods are
becoming recognized as obsolete for city councils and, hopefully soon,
state legislatures.
Thank you for your questions!
Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy
On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> 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 <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
>
RB
robert bristow-johnson
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 6:15 PM
On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...
...
On 06/04/2024 1:20 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com wrote:
rb-j: your complaints all seem to be about score voting, not rated ballots.
Uhm, I don't differentiate between the two terms.
Rated ballots can be used to execute a ranked voting algorithm.
Sure. Assuming sincere scoring, we can derive an ordered rank from the same.
But Score ballots still require too much information from voters.
In a governmental election, it must not matter about any difference in degree of our preference. If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, the information of that difference in degree of preference should not be on the ballot at all and the government should never take that difference in preference into consideration at all. If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for B must count just as much as my vote for A. And that must be because we have equality as citizens under the law.
We must not burden the voters with any notion that they are scoring or judging candidates. When a voter ranks A above B on the ballot the only meaning that can be transmitted from those markings on the ballot is that If the election was solely between A and B, this voter votes for A. And that vote counts equally as much as some other voter voting for B by ranking B above A.
The purpose of ranked ballots is to deal with multiple contingencies. How does a voter vote, given different contingencies of which candidates are most in play and which are not. It's not about voters judging candidates and being fair and measured in their judgement. In Olympic events that are decided solely by subjective judgement of judges (like figure skating) and not by objective physical measure (like time or distance measure), these judges do not vote by secret ballot. You might expect the Russian judge to possibly have a little bias toward the Russian contestant, but that bias will show if it's too much. The Russian judge will not get away with scoring the American contestant with zeros. And the western judge will not get away with scoring the Russian contestant with zeros.
But we are partisans and we vote by secret ballot and there is nothing stopping me from insincerely scoring a clone of the candidate I like with zeros. If I thought that the election was gonna be primarily between the candidate I like and this clone, I might be pressured to bury the clone because I fear that supporters of the clone are burying my candidate. But I shouldn't have to do that. I shouldn't even have to think about it.
If I like Candidate A more than Candidate B, then, if the race comes out to be competitive between A and B, I want all of my voting power to go to my vote for A because I know the B voters want all of their voting power to go to B.
It's not about judging the degree of quality of candidates and coupling how much your vote counts according to that judgement. It's about which candidate you are placing your vote for and the amount that your vote counts is determined only by your franchise. Any citizen with franchise has a vote that counts exactly as much as any other citizen with franchise. This must not be coupled to any measure of personal utility. This is not utilitarian, because if it were, we would all be tempted to exaggerate our personal utility when we see that as advantageous.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On 6/3/2024 7:00 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...
...
> On 06/04/2024 1:20 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves <closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> rb-j: your complaints all seem to be about score voting, not rated ballots.
Uhm, I don't differentiate between the two terms.
> Rated ballots can be used to execute a ranked voting algorithm.
Sure. Assuming sincere scoring, we can derive an ordered rank from the same.
But Score ballots *still* require too much information from voters.
In a governmental election, it must not matter about any difference in *degree* of our preference. If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, the information of that difference in degree of preference should not be on the ballot at all and the government should never take that difference in preference into consideration at all. If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for B must count just as much as my vote for A. And that must be because we have equality as citizens under the law.
We *must* *not* burden the voters with any notion that they are scoring or judging candidates. When a voter ranks A above B on the ballot the *only* meaning that can be transmitted from those markings on the ballot is that If the election was solely between A and B, this voter votes for A. And that vote counts equally as much as some other voter voting for B by ranking B above A.
The purpose of ranked ballots is to deal with multiple contingencies. How does a voter vote, given different contingencies of which candidates are most in play and which are not. It's not about voters judging candidates and being fair and measured in their judgement. In Olympic events that are decided solely by subjective judgement of judges (like figure skating) and not by objective physical measure (like time or distance measure), these judges do *not* vote by secret ballot. You might expect the Russian judge to possibly have a little bias toward the Russian contestant, but that bias will show if it's too much. The Russian judge will not get away with scoring the American contestant with zeros. And the western judge will not get away with scoring the Russian contestant with zeros.
But we are partisans and we vote by secret ballot and there is nothing stopping me from insincerely scoring a clone of the candidate I like with zeros. If I thought that the election was gonna be primarily between the candidate I like and this clone, I might be pressured to bury the clone because I fear that supporters of the clone are burying my candidate. But I shouldn't have to do that. I shouldn't even have to think about it.
If I like Candidate A more than Candidate B, then, if the race comes out to be competitive between A and B, I want *all* of my voting power to go to my vote for A because I know the B voters want all of their voting power to go to B.
It's not about judging the degree of quality of candidates and coupling how much your vote counts according to that judgement. It's about which candidate you are placing your vote for and the amount that your vote counts is determined *only* by your franchise. Any citizen with franchise has a vote that counts exactly as much as any other citizen with franchise. This must not be coupled to any measure of personal utility. This is *not* utilitarian, because if it were, we would all be tempted to exaggerate our personal utility when we see that as advantageous.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 8:33 PM
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
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
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
>
>
> 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
> >
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 8:51 PM
Presumably they’ll consult FairVote, unless they’ve already received
FairVote’s advice.
Richie was always very adamant about refusing any mitigation of IRV’s
strategic trainwreck.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:33 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
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
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Presumably they’ll consult FairVote, unless they’ve already received
FairVote’s advice.
Richie was always very adamant about refusing any mitigation of IRV’s
strategic trainwreck.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:33 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
>
>
>
> If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
>
> Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 9:06 PM
In fact, some of us suggested to Richie allowing equal-ranking, each vote
counted whole, & he immediately refused it.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:51 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Presumably they’ll consult FairVote, unless they’ve already received
FairVote’s advice.
Richie was always very adamant about refusing any mitigation of IRV’s
strategic trainwreck.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:33 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
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
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
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
In fact, some of us suggested to Richie allowing equal-ranking, each vote
counted whole, & he immediately refused it.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:51 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Presumably they’ll consult FairVote, unless they’ve already received
> FairVote’s advice.
>
> Richie was always very adamant about refusing any mitigation of IRV’s
> strategic trainwreck.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 13:33 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
>>
>> Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> >
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>>
>>
TP
Toby Pereira
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 9:26 PM
I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores. You can just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
Toby
On Tuesday 4 June 2024 at 18:12:19 BST, robert bristow-johnson rbj@audioimagination.com wrote:
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.
I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores. You can just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
Toby
On Tuesday 4 June 2024 at 18:12:19 BST, robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
> 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.
RB
robert bristow-johnson
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 10:51 PM
On 06/04/2024 5:26 PM EDT Toby Pereira tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
Yes, I agree about this type of contest. But you might end up changing your score on some song when you hear another one that sounded just a little better (or just a little worse) and you need to bump one or the other over because you don't think they're equal merit.
Now, again, here is my beef: If you're taking a poll and your intent is to just communicate to the pollsters how well you like the songs for them to get a measure of popularity, Score voting is the correct way to go.
But if the point of polling consumers is for these consumers to get some song (and band and nation) elected as EU's best, and if there is some pride or satisfaction or some other other social or political benefit you derive from your crew winning, then I don't think Score is the way to go. Or if there is some other song/band/nation that is crap (like Donald Trump and the influencers that follow him) if your other intent is that these assholes (who have some followers) are shut out and are least deserving of election as EU's best, then that contest should not be decided by Score. Because now, as a partisan, your intent in marking your ballot is not to provide accurate information for measuring collective utility, your intent is to accomplish a political goal and that leads to tactical/strategic voting on a Cardinal ballot.
Cardinal ballots cause the voter to make tactical voting decisions the minute they walk into the voting booth whenever there are 3 significant candidates or more. They have to decide how much they're gonna score their second favorite (or lesser evil) candidate. That is inherent to Cardinal methods.
Ordinal ballots, you know what to do with your second fav. You rank them #2. If the election method is working well, it shouldn't harm your favorite if the contest ends up being between the two (LNH). But you also don't want to worry about helping your second-fav beat the greater of evils (favorite betrayal). Scoring your second-fav is an inherent tradeoff between LNH and FB. But, unless Arrow and Gibbard are ruling the day, it need not be with Condorcet; remove any loser and the winner remains the same.
But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores.
In my opinion, the semantics are meaningless if you do. Or, at least, a Score ballot, with discrete score values, that is used only to infer relative preference, is a ranked ballot with equal ranking allowed. There is no meaningful difference between Score Voting and Borda Count with equal-ranking allowed and that closes gaps in rank. Now some people might insist that Borda cannot have equal ranking except for unranked candidates (who get a score of zero), then that's a little different from Score, but still comparable.
You can just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
But if the scores are not used numerically, except with a sgn(a-b) function, then it's essentially a ranked ballot that allows for equal ranking and that closes gaps of unranked candidates (which is the law in a few IRV towns, so an unused rank doesn't necessarily truncate the ballot).
I really don't want to conflate Cardinal vs. Ordinal. Ordinal is about ordering, Cardinal is about scoring. Borda seems to have a foot in both camps.
Lastly, I might reflect a little on my own politics regarding ballot access laws for governmental elections, it's the gubmint that running these elections. Just like in other functions of gubmint in which people compete (because of limited resources) for access to some benefits that not everyone gets, there need to be some objective requirements (age for drinking and for health benefit, income for welfare, fee for license, money for bids on contracts) to get your foot in the door. Eligibility. For elected office or a ballot question there should be appropriate ballot access requirements (normally valid signatures on a petition) to get something or someone on a ballot in a public election.
For a single-winner office, if there are often more than 5 candidates on the ballot, that jurisdiction needs to increase the number of valid signatures. At least in my opinion. 5 candidates is perfectly precinct summable (not for Hare RCV), provides the voter with a variety of choice, doesn't suffer from the Paradox of Choice, and, assuming Write-In is another option, needs only 5 ranking levels.
For multi-winner, I dunno. I wouldn't expect much more than 4 + number of seats or double the number.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
> On 06/04/2024 5:26 PM EDT Toby Pereira <tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
>
Yes, I agree about this type of contest. But you might end up changing your score on some song when you hear another one that sounded just a little better (or just a little worse) and you need to bump one or the other over because you don't think they're equal merit.
Now, again, here is my beef: If you're taking a poll and your intent is to just communicate to the pollsters how well you like the songs for them to get a measure of popularity, Score voting is the correct way to go.
But if the point of polling consumers is for these consumers to get some song (and band and nation) elected as EU's best, and if there is some pride or satisfaction or some other other social or political benefit you derive from your crew winning, *then* I don't think Score is the way to go. Or if there is some other song/band/nation that is crap (like Donald Trump and the influencers that follow him) if your other intent is that these assholes (who have some followers) are shut out and are *least* deserving of election as EU's best, then that contest should not be decided by Score. Because now, as a partisan, your intent in marking your ballot is not to provide accurate information for measuring collective utility, your intent is to accomplish a political goal and that leads to tactical/strategic voting on a Cardinal ballot.
Cardinal ballots cause the voter to make tactical voting decisions the minute they walk into the voting booth whenever there are 3 significant candidates or more. They have to decide how much they're gonna score their second favorite (or lesser evil) candidate. That is inherent to Cardinal methods.
Ordinal ballots, you know what to do with your second fav. You rank them #2. If the election method is working well, it shouldn't harm your favorite if the contest ends up being between the two (LNH). But you also don't want to worry about helping your second-fav beat the greater of evils (favorite betrayal). Scoring your second-fav is an inherent tradeoff between LNH and FB. But, unless Arrow and Gibbard are ruling the day, it need not be with Condorcet; remove any loser and the winner remains the same.
> But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores.
In my opinion, the semantics are meaningless if you do. Or, at least, a Score ballot, with discrete score values, that is used only to infer relative preference, is a ranked ballot with equal ranking allowed. There is no meaningful difference between Score Voting and Borda Count with equal-ranking allowed and that closes gaps in rank. Now some people might insist that Borda cannot have equal ranking except for unranked candidates (who get a score of zero), then that's a little different from Score, but still comparable.
> You can just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
>
But if the scores are not used numerically, except with a sgn(a-b) function, then it's essentially a ranked ballot that allows for equal ranking and that closes gaps of unranked candidates (which is the law in a few IRV towns, so an unused rank doesn't necessarily truncate the ballot).
I really don't want to conflate Cardinal vs. Ordinal. Ordinal is about ordering, Cardinal is about scoring. Borda seems to have a foot in both camps.
Lastly, I might reflect a little on my own politics regarding ballot access laws for governmental elections, it's the gubmint that running these elections. Just like in other functions of gubmint in which people compete (because of limited resources) for access to some benefits that not everyone gets, there need to be some objective requirements (age for drinking and for health benefit, income for welfare, fee for license, money for bids on contracts) to get your foot in the door. Eligibility. For elected office or a ballot question there should be appropriate ballot access requirements (normally valid signatures on a petition) to get something or someone on a ballot in a public election.
For a single-winner office, if there are often more than 5 candidates on the ballot, that jurisdiction needs to increase the number of valid signatures. At least in my opinion. 5 candidates is perfectly precinct summable (not for Hare RCV), provides the voter with a variety of choice, doesn't suffer from the Paradox of Choice, and, assuming Write-In is another option, needs only 5 ranking levels.
For multi-winner, I dunno. I wouldn't expect much more than 4 + number of seats or double the number.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
MO
Michael Ossipoff
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 10:59 PM
Robert is continuing to repeat his usual bigoted dogma schpiel with, as
always, no answer to objections.
That’s what makes it bigoted dogma instead of discussion.
That’s a violation of this mailing-list’s specified rules-of-conduct.
Maybe those rules should be attached to the top of each thread. …& enforced.
BTW, CES recommends Approval, & rarely if ever mentions Score.
On Tuesday 4 June 2024 at 18:12:19 BST, robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
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.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Robert is continuing to repeat his usual bigoted dogma schpiel with, as
always, no answer to objections.
That’s what makes it bigoted dogma instead of discussion.
That’s a violation of this mailing-list’s specified rules-of-conduct.
Maybe those rules should be attached to the top of each thread. …& enforced.
BTW, CES recommends Approval, & rarely if ever mentions Score.
>
> On Tuesday 4 June 2024 at 18:12:19 BST, robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
RT
Richard, the VoteFair guy
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 11:03 PM
On 6/4/2024 2:26 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are
easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. ...
For ballot marking, what you think of as "rating" I think of as ranking
at the same "choice" level.
In that sense we agree that going through a list of two dozen (or more)
candidates would be like "rating" them.
I believe that a well-chosen vote-counting method should allow a voter
to BOTH RATE AND RANK candidates on the ballot.
Specifically, the voter should be motivated to mark their most-preferred
two or three candidates in the first two or three (preference-level)
columns. This ensures their first choice really gets first-choice
priority, their second choice really gets second-choice priority, etc.
Then the remaining columns would be marked in a way that groups together
roughly-equally-liked candidates together in the same column. The voter
should not have to decide whether this is called "rating" or "ranking."
This hybrid approach -- ranking the first few and rating the rest --
works with as many candidates as appear on the ballot. Even for the 135
candidates in the infamous California gubernatorial recall election.
This hybrid ballot-marking approach is what I would use in the upcoming
Portland city-council election if mythical "overvotes" were allowed and
counted correctly.
Yet in my mind I'm only "rating" them for the choice columns to the
right of the first two or three choice columns. In your mind you're
rating them across all the preference levels.
... whereas with ranking, you have to do them in
order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
That's only if mythical "overvotes" are prohibited.
That's why I've pushed hard to eliminate the foolishness of dismissing
so-called "overvotes."
We agree that we should be free to mark multiple candidates at the same
preference level -- regardless of whether that qualifies as "rating" or
"ranking."
It's during vote counting when the rating versus ranking interpretation
correctly -- or incorrectly -- combines our intended opinions with the
opinions of other voters.
Switching to the topic of how many candidates will be on the ballot in
Portland ...
FWIW, in the upcoming Portland city-council election, based on the
declared candidates so far, there will be about 9 to 12 candidates on
the ballot. Each district will have their own set of candidates. I
believe there will be 6 choice columns.
If the marks were counted correctly I would use the hybrid approach I've
described above.
Fortunately the city-council counting will use STV. This makes it
unlikely that all three seats will be filled without electing at least
one of the 5 or 6 candidates I've marked.
(I don't know how write-in candidates will be handled, so I'm reluctant
to assume that my "sixth choice" candidate will be ranked above someone
else ranking a write-in candidate as their "first choice.")
Unfortunately there will be more "exhausted" ballots in the election for
mayor, because that will use (single-winner) IRV. So far there are only
about 6 candidates running for mayor. I hope this number increases
because I don't especially like any of them so far.
Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy
On 6/4/2024 2:26 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill
out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have
previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I
think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of
candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and
gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort
to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down
the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite
to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in
order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from
whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores. You can
just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
Toby
On 6/4/2024 2:26 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
> I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are
> easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. ...
For ballot marking, what you think of as "rating" I think of as ranking
at the same "choice" level.
In that sense we agree that going through a list of two dozen (or more)
candidates would be like "rating" them.
I believe that a well-chosen vote-counting method should allow a voter
to BOTH RATE AND RANK candidates on the ballot.
Specifically, the voter should be motivated to mark their most-preferred
two or three candidates in the first two or three (preference-level)
columns. This ensures their first choice really gets first-choice
priority, their second choice really gets second-choice priority, etc.
Then the remaining columns would be marked in a way that groups together
roughly-equally-liked candidates together in the same column. The voter
should not have to decide whether this is called "rating" or "ranking."
This hybrid approach -- ranking the first few and rating the rest --
works with as many candidates as appear on the ballot. Even for the 135
candidates in the infamous California gubernatorial recall election.
This hybrid ballot-marking approach is what I would use in the upcoming
Portland city-council election if mythical "overvotes" were allowed and
counted correctly.
Yet in my mind I'm only "rating" them for the choice columns to the
right of the first two or three choice columns. In your mind you're
rating them across all the preference levels.
> ... whereas with ranking, you have to do them in
> order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
That's only if mythical "overvotes" are prohibited.
That's why I've pushed hard to eliminate the foolishness of dismissing
so-called "overvotes."
We agree that we should be free to mark multiple candidates at the same
preference level -- regardless of whether that qualifies as "rating" or
"ranking."
It's during vote counting when the rating versus ranking interpretation
correctly -- or incorrectly -- combines our intended opinions with the
opinions of other voters.
Switching to the topic of how many candidates will be on the ballot in
Portland ...
FWIW, in the upcoming Portland city-council election, based on the
declared candidates so far, there will be about 9 to 12 candidates on
the ballot. Each district will have their own set of candidates. I
believe there will be 6 choice columns.
If the marks were counted correctly I would use the hybrid approach I've
described above.
Fortunately the city-council counting will use STV. This makes it
unlikely that all three seats will be filled without electing at least
one of the 5 or 6 candidates I've marked.
(I don't know how write-in candidates will be handled, so I'm reluctant
to assume that my "sixth choice" candidate will be ranked above someone
else ranking a write-in candidate as their "first choice.")
Unfortunately there will be more "exhausted" ballots in the election for
mayor, because that will use (single-winner) IRV. So far there are only
about 6 candidates running for mayor. I hope this number increases
because I don't especially like any of them so far.
Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy
On 6/4/2024 2:26 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
> I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill
> out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have
> previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I
> think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of
> candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and
> gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort
> to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down
> the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite
> to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in
> order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
>
> But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from
> whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores. You can
> just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
>
> Toby
MG
Michael Garman
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 11:40 PM
Great idea if you never want anything to change. But I wouldn’t expect
anything else from someone who repeats the same bigoted-dogma without
engaging in discussion…in direct violation of the rules of this
mailing-list!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 4:44 PM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
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
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Great idea if you never want anything to change. But I wouldn’t expect
anything else from someone who repeats the same bigoted-dogma without
engaging in discussion…in direct violation of the rules of this
mailing-list!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 4:44 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 09:11 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.
>
>
>
> If that’s true, then it’s evasive & doesn’t offer or guarantee shit.
>
> Vote no on RCV in Oregon & Nevada.
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
Replying to:
Empathy v1.0
2026 ©emwd.com