[EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonicvoting methods

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Again Kathy, it depends how you define monotonicity.

With FPTP, you can easily let your third choice win by voting for your first 
choice
while you could have got your second choice elected by voting for him.
But as you only want to consider monotonicity in regard to your first 
choice, you argue that FPTP is monotonic, which is right using that 
definition.

Stephane Rouillon

>From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: kathy.dopp at gmail.com
>To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending 
>non-Monotonicvoting methods & IRV/STV
>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:29:59 -0700
>
> > 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.