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

[Kathy Dopp]

> From: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2
>
> Abd wrote:
> <snip>
> The term "majority" as applied to elections has some very well-established
> meanings. If we say that a candidate got a majority in an election,
> we mean that a majority of those voting supported that candidate.

> majority. However, on page 387 RRONR states that "majority vote" means
> "more than half of the votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote, EXCLUDING BLANKS OR ABSTENTIONS..." [emphasis added]. The question is
> whether an exhausted ballot (one with no preference shown between the finalists) in an IRV election, is an abstention or an "illegal" vote.

----------

Terry,

It's difficult to know whether you are merely confused or deliberately
trying to mislead, but it is clear that Abd ul's definition of
majority was exactly correct when Abd ul said that:

"we say that a candidate got a majority in an election, we mean that a
majority of those voting supported that candidate."

as that corresponds exactly with the Robert's Rules you yourself cite
since "abstentions or blanks" are from those who have not voted.

Fair Vote and anyone else who claims that IRV/STV produces "majority
winners" in any U.S. election (where a full ranking of all candidates
is never required according to U.S. law and is not even permitted in
most jurisdictions) is flat-out lying and deliberately attempting to
mislead the public.

Majority winners has a very simple definition - a majority out of all
voters who cast votes in that election contest.

To redefine "majority winner" as a winner out of all voters whose
ballots have not expired by the final IRV/STV counting round is just
one of the many unethically misleading statements made by IRV/STV
proponents.

As everyone on this list knows, IRV/STV also does not solve the
spoiler problem if a spoiler is simply defined (as it has been for
decades) as a nonwinning candidate whose presence in the election
contest changes who wins the contest.

There are so many examples of provably incorrect and misleading
statements being made by Fair Vote and other IRV/STV proponents, even
after these proponents were amply informed of the falsity of their
statements, that the only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that
these IRV/STV proponents are deliberately trying to mislead the
public, in which case, the avowed publicly stated goals of IRV/STV
proponents must also be treated as suspect.

Cheers,

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

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Post-Election Vote Count Audit
A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal
http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf

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

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