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

[Chris Benham]

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 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 Benham

 



Dave Ketchum wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Perhaps this could get some useful muscle by adding such as:
      9 B>A

Now we have 34 voting B>A.  Enough that they can expect to win and may have 
as strong a preference between these two as might happen anywhere.

C and D represent issues many feel strongly about - and can want to assert 
to encourage action by B, the expected winner.  If ONE voter had voted B>A 
rather than D>B>A, IRV would have declared B the winner.

Note that Condorcet would have declared B the winner any time the B>A count 
exceeded the A>B count (unless C or D got many more votes).

DWK

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:05:03 -0700 Kathy Dopp wrote:
>Dave,
>
>I agree with you -that is important too, but the attorneys and
>judge(s) have their own criteria for judging importance as compared to
>existing laws.
>
>Your example IMO does show unequal treatment of voters, so perhaps
>I'll include it as one of many ways to show how IRV unequally treats
>voters and see if the attorneys use it or not.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Kathy


      Find your perfect match today at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1012
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081107/60fb0ffc/attachment-0003.htm>