[Election-Methods] IRV ballot is at least as fair as FPTP ballot

[Kathy Dopp]

On Dec 25, 2007 9:58 PM, Stéphane Rouillon
<stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>  Yes some voters have second-choice considered but they are all still
> treated equally.

Hardly.  Some voters have both their first AND second choices
considered and some voters do not.  IRV not only treats voters'
ballots very differently, it ensures that there are numerous ways that
a candidate is declared a winner who is supported by fewer voters
overall than a candidate who loses in the first round.

This fact is irrefutable, obvious and simple.  Just try some scenarios
out in any spreadsheet.

IRV would only be fair and treat all voters equally if all first AND
second choices of all voters were tabulated, with the second choices
being given some weight less than the first - ONLY then would IRV not
routinely allow numerous ways to declare a candidate a winner who is
supported by fewer voters than the candidate who loses in the first
round.

Kathy

>  I agree when you say IRV voters whose first-choice loses in the first round
> have their second choices considered.
>  I do not understand why you conclude that then obviously IRV does
> not consider the ballots choices of all voters equally. Who is
> advantaged during next round according to you?
>
>  The people whose have their second choices considered or the people who
> still have a first choice still running?
>
>  S. Rouillon
>
>  Kathy Dopp a écrit :
>
>  On Dec 25, 2007 2:35 PM, Stéphane Rouillon
> <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>  Miss Dopp,
>
>  I definitively cannot accept this analysis.
>  What you just wrote SEEMS OBVIOUSLY TRUE WITH IRV to me.
>
>  in a non-runoff FPTP single-person-position system, every voter has
> their first place choice tabulated and no one has any second-choice
> considered and all voters' ballots are treated equally.
>
>
> So you are now claiming that No Voter has any second-choices
> considered in IRV voting?
>
> Well I must have totally misunderstood IRV then. Pray tell me why are
> voters supposed to provide their second choices if "no one has any
> second-choice considered" then?
>
> I am mystified.
>
> My understanding was that with IRV voters whose first-choice loses in
> the first round have their second choices considered.
>
> If that were true (you claim now it is not) then obviously IRV does
> not consider the ballots choices of all voters equally and countably
> infinite situations result when candidates whom a majority of voters
> do NOT support can win the election.
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
>  This is obviously not true with IRV.
>
> Kathy
>  In IRV, every voter has a current preference tabulated and all voters'
> ballots are treated equally.
>  The fact that it is a first, second or fifth preference is definitively
> unrelevant when having to consider
>  the voting method fair or not. The treatment is the same for every voter,
> and you cannot say in advance
>  which voter will be unfairly treated, or less than with FPTP.
>  And this previous statement is simply unbelievable!!!
>
> my opinion is that it does
> not treat all voters' ballots equally and should be considered illegal
> under any law that requires the ballots of all voters to be treated
> equally.
>
> (...)
>
> Kathy
>
>  Obviously to me, IRV ballots are at least as fair than FPTP ballots,
>  and definitively more precise.
>
>  Stéphane Rouillon, ing., M.Sc.A., Ph.D.
>
>  Kathy Dopp a écrit :
>  -
> Allen,
>
> Your statement is flatly false.
>
> in a non-runoff FPTP single-person-position system, every voter has
> their first place choice tabulated and no one has any second-choice
> considered and all voters' ballots are treated equally.
>
> This is obviously not true with IRV.
>
> Kathy
>
>



-- 

Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author
Kathy Dopp's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a
Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in
exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at

P.O. Box 680192
Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://electionarchive.org

History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
Election Auditing Fundamentals
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf

Vote Yes on HR811 and S2295
http://electionmathematics.org/VoteYesHR811.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body
and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day," wrote
Thomas Jefferson in 1816