[EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonic voting methods & IRV/STV

[Greg]

Those documents make a good case. If you rule IRV/STV unconstitutional
due to non-monotonicity, you have to be prepared to rule open
primaries and top-two primaries unconstitutional as well.

Note also that other arguments by the "MN Voter's Alliance" would, if
successful, would render *any* voting method that involves putting
marks next to multiple candidates -- IRV, Bucklin, Approval,
Condorcet, Range -- by its nature unconstitutional.

They are also arguing that, because IRV satisfies Condorcet Loser and
therefore requires the winner to show *some* majority over another
candidate, that it could therefore lead to "tyranny" of the majority.
They are specifically arguing against the whole idea of majority rule
in a single-winner election.

These people are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
The fact that you've made allies with them is telling.


> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:23:39 -0700
> From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
> Subject: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonic
>        voting methods & IRV/STV
> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>
> FYI,
>
> Defendants in the MN Case (who are promoting IRV and STV methods) have
> just released new affidavits to the court that discuss Arrow's theorem
> as supporting the case for IRV/STV and dismissing the importance of
> IRV's nonmonotonicity.
>
> I posted three of these most recent affidavits of the defendants of
> Instant Runoff Voting and STV here:
>
> http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/
>
> The first two docs listed are by Fair Vote's new expert witness.
>
> The third doc is by the Minneapolis, MN City attorney.
>
> The defendants characterize Arrow's theorem as proving that "there
> exists no unequivocally satisfactory, or normatively appealing, voting
> rule." and claim the "possibility of nonmonotonic results plagues ALL
> potential democratic voting systems with 3 or more candidates unless a
> dictatorial voting rule is adopted."
>
> I would appreciate it if any of you have time to read some of the
> above three docs, particularly the third document by the attorney, and
> give me your responses.
>
> FYI, the plaintiff's characterizes Arrow's theorem on p. 3 of this doc:
>
> http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/11SuplementaryReplyMemoinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment.pdf
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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://electionarchive.org
> http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/
>
> How to Audit Election Outcome Accuracy
> http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/VoteCountAuditBillRequest.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