Do you have evidence of this?

First: why are you so fiercely opposed to using rated ballots? ...

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.

Finally: Equal Vote Coalition promotes proportional representation
algorithms like STAR-PR as well as single-winner reforms.

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>

 Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open letter to STAR

 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

 have needed to gather signatures to get their initiatives on their
 state's ballots.

 Here's the full text of the referendum:

 The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section 4.  Importantly
 the
 words do not mention anything about "overvotes."  Also importantly

 well-worded so the counting details can be refined in the future.

 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

 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

 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

 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"

 in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to every Eugene

 * 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:

 However, I get the impression you, the promoters of STAR voting, are
 overlooking the most important issues that account for why STAR

 was defeated.

 Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.

 * You seem to believe the FairVote organization is your enemy,

 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,

 a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round.

 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

 (as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66
 percent of that district's voters.  Yes, a single-winner method such

 STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation
 guarantee from zero to 50 percent.  But that does not reach the

 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

 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

 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

 where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly,

 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

 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

 believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a statement from

 Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the November

 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

 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"

 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

 with Oregon election-method experts to create the dramatically

 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

 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

 and rounding down to integers, but certified election software must

 use the decimal-number shortcut.)

 The remaining barrier to this correct counting of mythical

 is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which upgraded

 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

 the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent ranked choice

 to be "user unfriendly."  It's a misrepresentation because it does

 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

 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

 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

 more difficult to assign.)

 When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked choice ballots, a

 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

 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

 popular.  This is why the infamous Burlington mayoral election, and

 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

 mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely) to get the

 ("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

 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

 this flaw in a few years when more voters understand this subtle

 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

 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

 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

 Eugene voters too!

 And remember the last election for Oregon's governor in which we had

 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

 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

 choice voting" was introduced, and back when I attended so many

 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

 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

 and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back into space, which
 increases solar absorption, which increases the rate at which the

 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

 governments into climate-relevant action instead of further delays.

 Plus it will dramatically increase economic prosperity for Oregon

 we adopt a well-designed election system for electing our Oregon

 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"

 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

 article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about him promoting

 method.  Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I have seen and heard
 each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon state legislature.

 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

 of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful funding to Al Mobley

 spoiler candidate).  That's sad because Dave Frohnmayer would have

 a great governor.

 In November we have an opportunity to adopt an election system that,

 it had been used back then, would have elected Mark's father, Dave,

 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

 advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon legislature has

 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

   VoteFair Guy:

Are you saying that the IRV that the  November

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

Does every one of your top-ranked candidates get a point

your ballot, or does each of them get a useless little

vote divided among them?  …You know, split-vote in a

doesn’t have a split-vote problem.

An no, don’t embark on some long evasion or preface. I

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

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

     Below the dotted line is the beginning of my open

     promoters.

     Here's some background info for the benefit of

     readers:

     In November, throughout Oregon, Oregon voters will

     defeat a referendum that adopts ranked choice voting

     Oregon
     governors and Oregon members of Congress (and the

     state).  This referendum was passed by the Oregon

     This is huge!  All other states that have adopted

     have needed to gather signatures to get their

     state's ballots.

     Here's the full text of the referendum:

     The vote-counting details begin on page 2 in Section

     the
     words do not mention anything about "overvotes." 

     well-worded so the counting details can be refined

     it gives explicit permission to later adopt the

     vote
     (STV) for electing city-council members (which

     adopted) or for electing Oregon state legislators.

     Note:  The following "open letter" is long because

     reform is not a simple topic, and numerous

     involved.

     ........................

     Here's my open letter to STAR voting promoters:

     The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered

     the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from

     promoters of
     STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.

     These misunderstandings easily could lead to

     mistakes regarding support for, or opposition

     statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt

     voting for some Oregon elections.

     I'll start with areas where you, the STAR voting

     correctly identified relevant information.

     * Yes, the FairVote organization has a long history

     misrepresentations.

     * Yes, (as far as I know) the FairVote organization

     money that paid for "vote-no" postal flyers mailed

     * Yes, those flyers helped defeat the STAR voting

     * Yes, it's likely that FairVote helped pay for

     in the Eugene Voter's Pamphlet, which was mailed to

     * Yes, those statements of opposition in the voter's

     defeat the STAR voting initiative.

     (E-M forum aside: Here's the link to the Eugene

     However, I get the impression you, the promoters of

     overlooking the most important issues that account

     was defeated.

     Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more

     * You seem to believe the FairVote organization is

     understanding they are basically just supplying

     number of Oregon voters who understand that ranked

     much better than STAR ballots.

     * Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet

     unfairness of score voting during the first step of

     a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the

     your rebuttals about majority support focused on the

     step, which is not what they were criticizing.

     * You seem to dismiss the important difference

     single-winner method and a good multi-winner method

     single-transferable vote (STV).  STV really does

     representation
     for minorities, women, etc.  In fact STV with three

     (as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation

     percent of that district's voters. Yes, a

     STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this

     guarantee from zero to 50 percent.  But that does

     level that minorities want, and deserve.

     * Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who

     voting
     is a weak defense against the attacks from the

     advocates in Portland who have been learning about the
     single-transferable vote (STV). Remember STV will be

     in November to elect our city councilors.

     * Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is

     splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote

     lie.  This lie undermines your credibility for all

     If you try to define "vote splitting" as something

     avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you

     same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the

     organization.

     * The voter's-pamphlet statements in support of STAR

     of words talking about issues that are not as

     issues.  In my opinion these minor issues include

     summarized
     ballot data, how simple it is for calculating, the

     criterion, whether it works well among friends, etc.

     Clarification:  Yes, STAR voting is well-designed

     where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be

     where selfish people can be excluded, and where

     as a
     single round of ballot marking and counting. 

     strength-of-expression advantage becomes a

     elections.  That's because voters get extra

     their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at

     Now let's talk about possible future collaborations,

     collaboration.

     I too dislike the FairVote organization.  I've been

     them for three decades.

     Yet if the FairVote organization offers to pay the

     believe) to publish in the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet a

     Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy, in support of the

     I will gladly accept their assistance.

     Or if the FairVote organization asks for permission

     being in support of the upcoming November

     -- if
     the promotion does not imply blind support for the

     organization
     and does not imply the Burlington and Alaska

     correct winner.

     I'm open to this collaboration because they, the

     and I, the VoteFair guy, agree that RANKED CHOICE

     for
     election-method reform.

     Reaching areas of agreement, and working in

     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

     preference level."

     These are the words I spoke to the Oregon

     several years ago, back when the FairVote

     attempting to
     push their flawed idea of how they think ranked

     should be
     counted.

     Because of your testimony against that flawed

     because
     of my opposition, the Oregon lawyer who writes these

     with Oregon election-method experts to create the

     wording that is now in the November referendum.

     The referendum wording does not contain any mention

     This is huge!  Of course "overvote" is FairVote's

     marking two or more candidates in the same choice

     This means you, the fans of STAR voting, can take

     dramatically improving election methods here in Oregon!

     If you want, you can think of this refinement as a

     fans of the FairVote organization.

     Or you can spin it as a FairVote "lie" that is

     The result is that, possibly in 2028 when we have

     Oregon election using ranked choice ballots, we can

     that correctly counts so-called "overvotes."

     As a reminder, when a voter marks two candidates at

     level, and when the counting reaches that pattern,

     paired with another ballot that has the same

     one
     of those two ballots is counted as support for one

     candidates, and the other ballot is counted as

     candidate.  (Software can simulate this counting

     and rounding down to integers, but certified

     use the decimal-number shortcut.)

     The remaining barrier to this correct counting of

     is the lack of "certified" ballot data against which

     software can be tested.  Writing software is easy,

     certified requires certified data.

     The Oregon lawyer who wrote most of the referendum

     "overvote" issue a "counting detail."

     Why is this "counting detail" so important?

     This software refinement eliminates a valid

     voting promoters, have against FairVote's version of

     voting.

     Your criticism shows up in your recent pro-STAR

     the authors (Quinn, Wolk, and Ogren) misrepresent

     to be "user unfriendly."  It's a misrepresentation

     apply to ranked choice voting when mythical

     counted.  (There's another related user-friendly

     shortly.)

     (E-M forum aside:  Here's a link to that scholarly

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

     told to
     avoid "overvotes."  Especially when a voter wants to

     disliked candidate as the voter's last choice, and

     many
     choice columns as candidates.

     However, after mythical "overvotes" are counted

     data
     will reveal a big decrease in "spoiled" ballots. 

     part of your characterization of ranked choice

     unfriendly."

     Furthermore, ranked choice ballots with no

     allow a voter to RATE the candidates.

     Just like on a score ballot!

     This means the voters who think STAR ballots are

     able to mark their ranked choice ballot as if it

     They just need to look into a mirror -- to reverse

     orientation difference -- and ignore the column

     of stars and numbers.

     STAR voting fans correctly point out that some

     think in
     terms of ratings rather than rankings. (Other voters

     more difficult to assign.)

     When so-called overvotes are allowed on ranked

     can use either a rating or ranking approach,

     To repeat, this correct counting of so-called

     the wording in November's referendum because it

     about how to handle those mythical "overvotes."

     There is yet another area were I, the VoteFair guy,

     promoters of STAR voting, agree.  And where we

     FairVote organization.

     The candidate with the fewest transferred votes is

     popular.  This is why the infamous Burlington

     recent special Alaska election, elected the wrong

     You correctly recognize that this unfairness is easy

     diagrams.

     You use this unfairness as evidence that ranked

     "user
     unfriendly."  Specifically a close election can

     mark their ballot tactically (instead of sincerely)

     ("correct") election result.

     Misleadingly you fail to mention that this "user

     disappear when better election software becomes

     The FairVote organization foolishly attempts to

     Burlington and Alaska.  This is part of why lots of

     voting, and why they regard the FairVote

     Fortunately the referendum wording is written

     makes it possible to correct this vote-counting flaw

     I believe that adding just two sentences might be

     this flaw in a few years when more voters understand

     Specifically, the referendum's counting method can

     implement Benham's method.  Just add words such as:

     counting has a pairwise winning candidate, that

     pairwise winning candidate is a candidate who would

     one-on-one
     contest against every remaining candidate."

     Or, the wording can be changed to implement the

     Pairwise Elimination (RCIPE) method. In this case

     would
     say something like:  "Pairwise losing candidates are

     they occur; a pairwise losing candidate is a

     every one-on-one contest against every remaining

     The result would be an election method that

     against the version of instant-runoff voting that

     organization foolishly tries to defend.

     Hopefully you recognize that the referendum can,

     two sentences, yield all the most significant

     advantages
     of STAR voting.

     Of course some of your STAR-voting fans will not

     interpretation.

     Yet you can claim credit for helping Oregon adopt a
     reasonably-well-designed method that significantly

     the
     FairVote organization originally tried to push

     legislature.

     Now I'll discuss a concern.

     I'm concerned that you, the STAR voting promoters,

     sabotage
     the November referendum.  That might be based on

     FairVote organization is your enemy, and that this

     opportunity to "fight back" after losing the Eugene

     Any such sabotage would be a sabotage against all

     majority of whom want a better election system. 

     Eugene voters too!

     And remember the last election for Oregon's governor

     vote tactically to avoid vote splitting because of

     candidate
     Betsy Johnson getting money from a Nike co-founder. 

     will
     solve that vote-splitting problem.

     In case it's important, I did not express opposition

     voting initiative.  I remained neutral because I

     people who live in Eugene and I want them to get a

     system.  (I agree that STAR voting is better than

     long ago, I used to tell friends in Eugene we need

     "order-of-preference ballots."  That was back in the

     before STAR voting was invented in Eugene, long

     choice voting" was introduced, and back when I

     in Eugene that some people in Eugene thought I lived

     back to the present, I was genuinely curious to see

     would respond to your initiative.

     The Eugene defeat of STAR voting reveals that a huge

     voters correctly recognize that ranked choice

     well-chosen counting method, are better than STAR

     In a bigger context, any attempts to defeat the

     could lead to planet-wide suicide!

     Back in the 1970's, while living in Corvallis, I did

     for a master's degree in Atmospheric Science at

     University.
        Plus I did a summer fellowship at the National

     Atmospheric
     Research (NCAR) where I found and fixed a bug in one

     models.  So I have known since the 1970s that our

     bad feedback loop where each loss of snow and ice

     and south poles reduces the sunlight reflected back

     increases solar absorption, which increases the rate

     and ice melt.  That understanding is part of what

     pursue
     election-method reform with a sense of urgency.

     Adopting a better election system is the tipping

     governments into climate-relevant action instead of

     Plus it will dramatically increase economic

     we adopt a well-designed election system for

     representatives.  (That's the next step after

     referendum.)
        (And consider that better economic prosperity

     domino-effect symptoms such as homelessness and crime.)

     In the meantime our Oregon state legislature is

     opportunity to implement election-method reform that

     civilization reach much higher levels of democracy.

     At the national level, higher levels of democracy

     crazy U.S. elections so we can fill Congress with

     leaders.  They will replace any members of Congress

     being
     puppets of their biggest campaign contributors.

     You and the fans of STAR voting have helped make

     pushed back against the FairVote organization's

     "their" vote-counting method so that Oregon

     could write a well-designed referendum.

     I'm aware that Mark Frohnmayer, who provides lots of

     promote STAR voting, originally was a fan of

     That's because decades ago a friend in Eugene sent

     article in the Eugene Register Guard newspaper about

     method.  Since then, you, Mark Frohnmayer, and I

     each other during verbal testimony to the Oregon

     you should want to meet via video to ask any

     that
     form of communication.

     While looking up the correct spelling for Frohnmayer

     that
     Mark's father, Dave, lost an election to become

     of vote splitting (partly because of spiteful

     spoiler candidate).  That's sad because Dave

     a great governor.

     In November we have an opportunity to adopt an

     it had been used back then, would have elected

     spite of the presence of an intentional spoiler

     All of you who promote STAR voting have lots to be

     * You have helped educate huge numbers of voters

     better ballots.

     * You have taught huge numbers of voters about vote

     * Wisely you have pushed to allow a voter to mark

     candidate at the same preference level.

     * You have exposed the FairVote organization's lie

     with the fewest transferred votes is always least

     Let's build on the election-method reform foundation

     building together throughout many years.

     I look forward to working with you, rather than

     advantage of the huge election reform the Oregon

     given to us.

     We don't have time for any more misunderstandings. 

     melting
     faster than elections are being improved.

     Richard Fobes
     The VoteFair guy
     ----
     Election-Methods mailing list - see

     https://electorama.com/em for list info

They are easier to fill out.

They allow expression of strength of preference and indifference.

They stay the same from one election to the next, regardless of the number of candidates. They don't require limiting your rankings to top 5 for space in an election with 20 candidates, etc. etc.