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

[Kathy Dopp]

> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:51:31 -0500
> From: Greg <greg at somervilleirv.org>

> 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.

Your statement above is provably false Greg since plurality voting in
both primary and general elections is very simply mathematically
provably monotonic.

>
> 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.

Really?!*  What arguments are those? I missed that.

>
> 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.

Who is "they"? And where did "they" argue what you claim in your above sentence?

How do you define "*some* majority". Never seen a precise definition of that.


> They are specifically arguing against the whole idea of majority rule
> in a single-winner election.

Who is "they"?  Do you mean that IRV proponents are arguing against
the idea of majority rule because IRV finds majority winners less
often than runoff elections or primary/general elections?

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

Oh, OK.  I now see why your statements above contradict facts.  I'm
always surprised at how emotionally attached and impervious to facts
some folks are to IRV as a voting method.

Kathy