[EM] (no subject)

[Kathy Dopp]

> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 04:11:45 -0800 (PST)
> From: Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au>
> Subject: [EM] New MN court affidavits etc. (correction)
>
> Dave,
> Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a group of avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
> unconstitutional?
>
> Will you have any complaint when in future they are trying to do the same thing to some Condorcet method you like and IRV supporters help them on grounds like it fails Later-no-Harm, Later-no-Help, and probably? mono-add-top?

Chris,

Your statement oversimplifies and ignores details/differences between
IRV and Condorcet.  IRV proponents may pretend not to know that
Condorcet methods do not exhibit most of the flaws of IRV counting
methods. For example, Condorcet, to my knowledge treats all voters
ballots equally, considers all choices on all ballots, is precinct,
county, and state summable and thus would not be an obstacle to a
national popular vote for President, produces fairer results, etc.

Clearly to anyone willing to think about the specifics, any argument
against Condorcet or range voting methods would not be able to make
use of the ample arguments available to anyone who opposes counting
methods like IRV, so such fear-mongering is wholly inappropriate.

Kathy