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

[Greg]

Kathy,

>> 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.

As you acknowledge, IRV does not satisfy monotonicity when there are
three (or more) candidates. Top-two runoff is equivalent to IRV when
there are three candidates. So if you're going to claim IRV is
unconstitutional due to non-monotonicity, you would, at least
logically, have to deem top-two runoff unconstitutional as well. The
affidavit from David Austen-Smith that you are hosting on your site
shows you a simple example of this:
  http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/11AffidavitofDavidAusten-Smith.pdf


>> 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.

That would be their response to argument #1 on their webpage against IRV:
  http://www.mnvoters.org/IRV.htm

They claim that the act of marking multiple choices on the ballot is
effectively allowing the voter to cast "multiple votes," and
therefore, unconstitutional. If that argument is successful, it would
jeopardize any alternative to plurality in Minnesota.


>> 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?

This is argument #2 on their page. Here's the link again:
  http://www.mnvoters.org/IRV.htm

Here's is the relevant snippet:

    "2. IRV advocates say the current primary system is flawed
    because: "it undermines the 50% +1 majority-winner requirement."

    Our response - The objection to a plurality system is misguided.
    The Founding Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic, not a
    majority-rule Democracy, because they knew pure majority rule often
    leads to tyranny."

They then proceed to contradict themselves and claim that, actually,
IRV doesn't require a majority. So are they for some kind of majority
threshold or not? I don't think they know what they believe. They're
just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.


>> 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.

Hmm, "emotionally attached and impervious to facts.". I detect some
psychological projection here.