[Election-Methods] IRV unconstitutional?

[Warren Smith]

Venzke:
In my opinion you could find that a failure of virtually any criterion is
unconstitutional. That's why I don't think this is a promising way to try
to defeat methods we don't like. I think it's mostly dangerous.
I say we had best not give the referees invitations to ban all our methods.

--WDS replies:
true.

However, you have no choice but to enter this arena because an anti-IRV lawsuit
has already been filed.


I personally feel that IRV's constitutionality is more questionable than
range, approval, plurality, and Condorcet.   
To make fun of the "contingency" argument:
We have to decide what flavor pizza to buy.   I vote "in the contingency
we live in New York, I want onion."   You do not get to use that
contingncy and we DO live in New York.  Fair?   Well, that kind of thing
happens with IRV.

However, note that a different version of the same argument could be used
to attack the constituionality of plurality voting (which is clearly constituional
so the argument must be questionable?):
   Nader voters, in the contingency itis Gore V Bush, are prevented from having an effect;
   Gore voters are not prevented.
Discriminatory against one class of voters, and again manipulable by, e.g. Bush SPONSORING
Nader to disenfranshise a class of voters.

-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html