[EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 15 22:24:32 PST 2008

> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:58:29 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2
> Hi,
> --- En date de?: Dim 14.12.08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> a ?crit?:
>> > >> That's not very generous. I can think of
>> a couple of defenses. One would
>> > >> be to point out that it is necessitated by
>> the other criteria that IRV
>> > >> satisfies. All things being equal, I consider
>> LNHarm more desirable than
>> > >> monotonicity, for instance.

Abd ul,

That is about the strangest position I've seen you take on any subject
because it is equivalent to saying that it is more important for a
voting method not to hurt my lower choice candidates than my first
choice candidates.

I.e. Monotonicity is, briefly stated, "first no harm".

So you are saying that you don't want a voter's second choice to hurt
the voter's first choice, but you don't mind if the voter's first
choice hurts the voter's first choice.

I find that position to be very bizarre.


Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author'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


How to Audit Election Outcome Accuracy

History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
Election Auditing Fundamentals

Voters Have Reason to Worry

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list