Re: [EM] No. Condorcet and Hare do not share the same problem with computational complexity and process transparency.
On 03/20/2024 2:04 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Also, regarding the Otis interview, here's the transcript (https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/03/19/could-ranked-choice-voting-take-the-poison-out-of-politics). This is her description of the tabulation process. No lies detected.
My goodness, you're disingenuous. Or, perhaps, you just don't know what you're talking about. Should I give you that benefit of doubt?
...
OTIS: Voters in Alaska will not have to do the strategic voting. They just get to ranked honestly. Voters in some other states are going to have to do some tough math.
...
Problem is that in Alaska in August 2022 and in Burlington Vermont in 2009, voters would have to do even tougher math to avoid being burned in those two elections.
Voters for the loser in the final round would have avoided causing the election of their least favorite candidate by voting tactically. But because they vote sincerely, they got burned.
CHAKRABARTI: What's your best argument for why you think moving to this system is better for American democracy?
OTIS: Oh, there are so many reasons. I think the biggest one is just getting majority winners.
...
That's a lie. And FV knows it.
CHAKRABARTI: What's your best argument for why you think moving to this system is better for American democracy?
OTIS: Oh, there are so many reasons. I think the biggest one is just getting majority winners.
...
Another lie.
...
(OTIS cont.): And ranked choice has been shown to improve representation for women and people of color.
...
That has also not been shown. There is no statistical significance that shows that RCV other than trends happening in the 21st century has improved representation of women and POC.
...
OTIS: The ranked choice voting is like an instant runoff. The votes are tabulated in a matter of a couple of seconds.
...
What's disingenuous here is that, for statewide RCV, it takes days to centralize the ballot data before the IRV tabulation can begin. Alaska took 15 days in November 2022. Maine took 10 days in 2018.
Computers are fast. Big deal. But that does not make IRV "Instant".
Without Precinct Summability, we lose a critical part of Process Transparency we need to keep some Trumpist election official from "just find[ing], uh, 11780, uh votes." Fortunately Raffensberger was not Jeffery Clark. But if he was corrupt, the first thing that prevents a corrupt official from padding the numbers is Precinct Summability and the fact that polling places had already published the necessary data for us to know how the election will turn out. We have that with FPTP and we lose it with IRV.
...
OTIS: And ranked choice voting is the best way to take the temperature of the electorate and elect someone who has the broadest support and can best represent the voters.
...
Again a falsehood in both Alaska 2022 and Burlington 2009. And FV is aware of it. The candidate with broadest support (by any mathematical measure that is not defined by the IRV procedure) in those two elections was the candidate eliminated in the semifinal round.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
My goodness, you’re disingenuous! Or perhaps you’re ignorant — should I
give you the benefit of the doubt? The Alaska counting delay was due to a
law requiring them to count mail ballots received up to two weeks after the
election. It had nothing to do with IRV!
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:23 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2024 2:04 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Also, regarding the Otis interview, here's the transcript (
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/03/19/could-ranked-choice-voting-take-the-poison-out-of-politics).
This is her description of the tabulation process. No lies detected.
My goodness, you're disingenuous. Or, perhaps, you just don't know what
you're talking about. Should I give you that benefit of doubt?
...
OTIS: Voters in Alaska will not have to do the strategic voting. They just
get to ranked honestly. Voters in some other states are going to have to do
some tough math.
...
Problem is that in Alaska in August 2022 and in Burlington Vermont in
2009, voters would have to do even tougher math to avoid being burned in
those two elections.
Voters for the loser in the final round would have avoided causing the
election of their least favorite candidate by voting tactically. But
because they vote sincerely, they got burned.
CHAKRABARTI: What's your best argument for why you think moving to this
system is better for American democracy?
OTIS: Oh, there are so many reasons. I think the biggest one is just
getting majority winners.
...
That's a lie. And FV knows it.
CHAKRABARTI: What's your best argument for why you think moving to this
system is better for American democracy?
OTIS: Oh, there are so many reasons. I think the biggest one is just
getting majority winners.
...
Another lie.
...
(OTIS cont.): And ranked choice has been shown to improve representation
for women and people of color.
...
That has also not been shown. There is no statistical significance that
shows that RCV other than trends happening in the 21st century has improved
representation of women and POC.
...
OTIS: The ranked choice voting is like an instant runoff. The votes are
tabulated in a matter of a couple of seconds.
...
What's disingenuous here is that, for statewide RCV, it takes days
to centralize the ballot data before the IRV tabulation can begin. Alaska
took 15 days in November 2022. Maine took 10 days in 2018.
Computers are fast. Big deal. But that does not make IRV "Instant".
Without Precinct Summability, we lose a critical part of Process
Transparency we need to keep some Trumpist election official from "just
find[ing], uh, 11780, uh votes." Fortunately Raffensberger was not Jeffery
Clark. But if he was corrupt, the first thing that prevents a corrupt
official from padding the numbers is Precinct Summability and the fact that
polling places had already published the necessary data for us to know how
the election will turn out. We have that with FPTP and we lose it with IRV.
...
OTIS: And ranked choice voting is the best way to take the temperature of
the electorate and elect someone who has the broadest support and can best
represent the voters.
...
Again a falsehood in both Alaska 2022 and Burlington 2009. And FV is
aware of it. The candidate with broadest support (by any mathematical
measure that is not defined by the IRV procedure) in those two elections
was the candidate eliminated in the semifinal round.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Do “general trends” explain the discrepancy in levels of representation
between IRV and non-IRV cities with similar characteristics?
IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits. Some people will always cry
fraud when they lose, but IRV can be audited rigorously.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:25 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
My goodness, you’re disingenuous! Or perhaps you’re ignorant — should I
give you the benefit of the doubt? The Alaska counting delay was due to a
law requiring them to count mail ballots received up to two weeks after the
election. It had nothing to do with IRV!
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:23 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2024 2:04 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Also, regarding the Otis interview, here's the transcript (
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/03/19/could-ranked-choice-voting-take-the-poison-out-of-politics).
This is her description of the tabulation process. No lies detected.
My goodness, you're disingenuous. Or, perhaps, you just don't know what
you're talking about. Should I give you that benefit of doubt?
...
OTIS: Voters in Alaska will not have to do the strategic voting. They
just get to ranked honestly. Voters in some other states are going to have
to do some tough math.
...
Problem is that in Alaska in August 2022 and in Burlington Vermont in
2009, voters would have to do even tougher math to avoid being burned in
those two elections.
Voters for the loser in the final round would have avoided causing the
election of their least favorite candidate by voting tactically. But
because they vote sincerely, they got burned.
CHAKRABARTI: What's your best argument for why you think moving to this
system is better for American democracy?
OTIS: Oh, there are so many reasons. I think the biggest one is just
getting majority winners.
...
That's a lie. And FV knows it.
CHAKRABARTI: What's your best argument for why you think moving to this
system is better for American democracy?
OTIS: Oh, there are so many reasons. I think the biggest one is just
getting majority winners.
...
Another lie.
...
(OTIS cont.): And ranked choice has been shown to improve representation
for women and people of color.
...
That has also not been shown. There is no statistical significance that
shows that RCV other than trends happening in the 21st century has improved
representation of women and POC.
...
OTIS: The ranked choice voting is like an instant runoff. The votes are
tabulated in a matter of a couple of seconds.
...
What's disingenuous here is that, for statewide RCV, it takes days
to centralize the ballot data before the IRV tabulation can begin. Alaska
took 15 days in November 2022. Maine took 10 days in 2018.
Computers are fast. Big deal. But that does not make IRV "Instant".
Without Precinct Summability, we lose a critical part of Process
Transparency we need to keep some Trumpist election official from "just
find[ing], uh, 11780, uh votes." Fortunately Raffensberger was not Jeffery
Clark. But if he was corrupt, the first thing that prevents a corrupt
official from padding the numbers is Precinct Summability and the fact that
polling places had already published the necessary data for us to know how
the election will turn out. We have that with FPTP and we lose it with IRV.
...
OTIS: And ranked choice voting is the best way to take the temperature
of the electorate and elect someone who has the broadest support and can
best represent the voters.
...
Again a falsehood in both Alaska 2022 and Burlington 2009. And FV is
aware of it. The candidate with broadest support (by any mathematical
measure that is not defined by the IRV procedure) in those two elections
was the candidate eliminated in the semifinal round.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 03/20/2024 3:27 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Do “general trends” explain the discrepancy in levels of representation between IRV and non-IRV cities with similar characteristics?
You need to learn how to do Bayesian inference. RCV hasn't been around for long in the U.S., except for Cambridge MA. All over the U.S. representation of POC has increased, not just some of the few places where RCV has existed for less than a decade. Most scholars are crediting that to single-member districts in the South, which prevented corrupt legislators from drawing lines splitting the Black vote without the districts appearing gerrymandered.
But if I roll a pair of dice once or twice and I get two ones both times, do I conclude that the dice is weighted?
IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
Some people will always cry fraud when they lose, but IRV can be audited rigorously.
Not like FPTP nor like Condorcet can be audited. In Alaska in November 2022, they didn't announce results until the day before Thanksgiving. No one knew who won until then.
There are no redundant data paths where other interested parties, namely the media and the competing campaigns, can get the raw numbers from the polling places and simply add those numbers up and see who wins.
This is something we have right now with FPTP and we lose it with IRV because IRV is not precinct summable.
Again, what if Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was corrupt like apparently Jeffrey Clark is? What prevents someone at the single-point-of-failure from surreptitiously padding (or subtracting) tallies of the vote in a close election to swing the outcome to a different candidate? What prevents that, what keeps honest people honest, is that these tallies are already published on the night of the election at the polling places. If they are changed significantly, people will get suspicious. If they are changed enough that the outcome of the election is changed, then people will focus on the very cities and polling places where numbers are disparate and sealed ballot bags are opened.
Precinct Summability is necessary to do that. Precinct Summability is a property we make use of, right now, with FPTP. And we lose it with IRV. And then IRV doesn't scale well when it goes statewide. How do they centralize the ballot data securely and quickly enough that conspiracy theorists cannot call out as suspicious? How do we find out who wins (or is expected to win) on election night in a statewide election? We find out by adding up numbers that we learn that are published at each polling place on the evening of the election after the polls close.
Mr. Garman, I suggest you might consider doing some work as a poll worker or even as an elected polling official. I have done both.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
I have been a poll worker. I know what I’m talking about.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
That’s the point — it’s just as secure.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:56 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2024 3:27 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Do “general trends” explain the discrepancy in levels of representation
between IRV and non-IRV cities with similar characteristics?
You need to learn how to do Bayesian inference. RCV hasn't been around
for long in the U.S., except for Cambridge MA. All over the U.S.
representation of POC has increased, not just some of the few places where
RCV has existed for less than a decade. Most scholars are crediting that
to single-member districts in the South, which prevented corrupt
legislators from drawing lines splitting the Black vote without the
districts appearing gerrymandered.
But if I roll a pair of dice once or twice and I get two ones both times,
do I conclude that the dice is weighted?
IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
Some people will always cry fraud when they lose, but IRV can be audited
rigorously.
Not like FPTP nor like Condorcet can be audited. In Alaska in November
2022, they didn't announce results until the day before Thanksgiving. No
one knew who won until then.
There are no redundant data paths where other interested parties, namely
the media and the competing campaigns, can get the raw numbers from the
polling places and simply add those numbers up and see who wins.
This is something we have right now with FPTP and we lose it with IRV
because IRV is not precinct summable.
Again, what if Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was corrupt
like apparently Jeffrey Clark is? What prevents someone at the
single-point-of-failure from surreptitiously padding (or subtracting)
tallies of the vote in a close election to swing the outcome to a different
candidate? What prevents that, what keeps honest people honest, is that
these tallies are already published on the night of the election at the
polling places. If they are changed significantly, people will get
suspicious. If they are changed enough that the outcome of the election is
changed, then people will focus on the very cities and polling places where
numbers are disparate and sealed ballot bags are opened.
Precinct Summability is necessary to do that. Precinct Summability is a
property we make use of, right now, with FPTP. And we lose it with IRV.
And then IRV doesn't scale well when it goes statewide. How do they
centralize the ballot data securely and quickly enough that conspiracy
theorists cannot call out as suspicious? How do we find out who wins (or
is expected to win) on election night in a statewide election? We find out
by adding up numbers that we learn that are published at each polling place
on the evening of the election after the polls close.
Mr. Garman, I suggest you might consider doing some work as a poll worker
or even as an elected polling official. I have done both.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
As a bit of an aside, the obsession with knowing who won the election the
night of when the officials elected won’t take office for roughly two
months strikes me as entirely unnecessary. Better that all votes are
counted fairly using the best system possible — which I’m not saying IRV is
— than that we get instant gratification using an inferior method.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:59 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
I have been a poll worker. I know what I’m talking about.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
That’s the point — it’s just as secure.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:56 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2024 3:27 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Do “general trends” explain the discrepancy in levels of representation
between IRV and non-IRV cities with similar characteristics?
You need to learn how to do Bayesian inference. RCV hasn't been around
for long in the U.S., except for Cambridge MA. All over the U.S.
representation of POC has increased, not just some of the few places where
RCV has existed for less than a decade. Most scholars are crediting that
to single-member districts in the South, which prevented corrupt
legislators from drawing lines splitting the Black vote without the
districts appearing gerrymandered.
But if I roll a pair of dice once or twice and I get two ones both times,
do I conclude that the dice is weighted?
IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
Some people will always cry fraud when they lose, but IRV can be
audited rigorously.
Not like FPTP nor like Condorcet can be audited. In Alaska in November
2022, they didn't announce results until the day before Thanksgiving. No
one knew who won until then.
There are no redundant data paths where other interested parties, namely
the media and the competing campaigns, can get the raw numbers from the
polling places and simply add those numbers up and see who wins.
This is something we have right now with FPTP and we lose it with IRV
because IRV is not precinct summable.
Again, what if Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was corrupt
like apparently Jeffrey Clark is? What prevents someone at the
single-point-of-failure from surreptitiously padding (or subtracting)
tallies of the vote in a close election to swing the outcome to a different
candidate? What prevents that, what keeps honest people honest, is that
these tallies are already published on the night of the election at the
polling places. If they are changed significantly, people will get
suspicious. If they are changed enough that the outcome of the election is
changed, then people will focus on the very cities and polling places where
numbers are disparate and sealed ballot bags are opened.
Precinct Summability is necessary to do that. Precinct Summability is a
property we make use of, right now, with FPTP. And we lose it with IRV.
And then IRV doesn't scale well when it goes statewide. How do they
centralize the ballot data securely and quickly enough that conspiracy
theorists cannot call out as suspicious? How do we find out who wins (or
is expected to win) on election night in a statewide election? We find out
by adding up numbers that we learn that are published at each polling place
on the evening of the election after the polls close.
Mr. Garman, I suggest you might consider doing some work as a poll worker
or even as an elected polling official. I have done both.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 03/20/2024 3:59 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
I have been a poll worker. I know what I’m talking about.
Your words don't suggest that.
IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
That’s the point — it’s just as secure.
No it's not. This is how I know now that you are blatantly disingenuous.
"Secure" is not equivalent semantically (nor in reality) to "compatible with risk-limiting audits".
When it's not Precinct Summable, then you have to consider where the source of the original information you're using to do the audit.
My goodness. I think I'm dealing with a Trumper.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On 03/20/2024 4:00 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
As a bit of an aside, the obsession with knowing who won the election the night of when the officials elected won’t take office for roughly two months strikes me as entirely unnecessary.
My that's convenient. It might strike someone else differently.
Better that all votes are counted fairly using the best system possible —
Which is not IRV.
which I’m not saying IRV is —
No, it's not. Condorcet is better AND it's Precinct Summable to boot. As is FPTP.
than that we get instant gratification using an inferior method.
IRV is the inferior method and it leaves the impression with some voters and media people that something is hidden for two weeks.
The problem is single-point-of-failure. Like that Boeing 737-MAX MCAS system. With Precinct Summability, we have redundancy in the data paths of vote counts that independent people can use to determine the outcome of the elections. With IRV there is only one source of information that you can get the vote tallies (that actually matter in determining the outcome) to see who wins.
The whole issue of this process transparency is so that if a surprise happens, like the media says that A wins, but then a week later the government announces that B won, then we know something might be fishy and then we can look to where the discrepancies lie. Then ballot bags can be opened and focused recounts can be done.
If this announcement is made two weeks later and there are no redundant sources of data to verify that outcome, we have a single-point failure. No one has any information to verify or dispute the outcome that was announced.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
My goodness. I think I'm dealing with a Trumper.
I don't know too many Trumpers who run socialist campaigns, do you?
"Secure" is not equivalent semantically (nor in reality) to "compatible
with risk-limiting audits".
Risk-limiting audits are a secure verification procedure. IRV and FPP are
both compatible with a secure procedure. Therefore they are both, at least
in one sense, equally secure. Precinct summability isn't the be-all or
end-all of "security," either.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:03 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2024 3:59 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I have been a poll worker. I know what I’m talking about.
Your words don't suggest that.
IRV is compatible with risk limiting audits.
That doesn't say shit. So is FPTP.
That’s the point — it’s just as secure.
No it's not. This is how I know now that you are blatantly disingenuous.
"Secure" is not equivalent semantically (nor in reality) to "compatible
with risk-limiting audits".
When it's not Precinct Summable, then you have to consider where the
source of the original information you're using to do the audit.
My goodness. I think I'm dealing with a Trumper.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On 03/20/2024 4:16 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
My goodness. I think I'm dealing with a Trumper.
I don't know too many Trumpers who run socialist campaigns, do you?
Listen, I live in Burlington Vermont. The people here that are sometimes just as dishonest as Trumpers are the Vermont Progressive Party, the most successful third party in the United States (if you measure success by getting people elected).
Facts can never change their minds.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.