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

[Dave Ketchum]

Trivia:  B gets at least 9 votes with Plurality, more if voters recognize 
the method and adjust their voting.

Agreed that Plurality and Two-round runoffs should lose against any good 
system - as should IRV.

If the court cannot do better, perhaps they should throw the case out for 
weakness in arguments - I see either side winning producing nothing but 
trouble.

DWK

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:02:15 -0500 Terry Bouricius wrote:
> But Dave Ketchum's example is about how IRV can fail to elect a Condorcet 
> winner. This candidate gets zero votes under plurality rules and is 
> immediately eliminated under two-round runoff rules as well. Plurality and 
> Two-round runoffs are the two systems the plaintiffs are seeking to 
> preserve, while "constitutionally" prohibiting Condorcet (as well as IRV).
> 
> Terry Bouricius
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dave Ketchum" <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> To: <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>; <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonic 
> voting methods & IRV/STV
> 
> 
> 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
>>
>>On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Topic below is monotonicity, which seems discardable as a side issue.
>>>
>>>Of more importance is IRV's NOT CARING whether more voters indicate
>>>preferring A>B or B>A - can even declare A the winner when a majority of
>>>voters prefer B of this pair.
>>>
>>>Example:
>>>20 A>B
>>>15 C>B>A
>>>10 D>B>A
>>>
>>>Here a majority prefer B>A, but C and D have a special attraction for 
>>>some
>>>some minorities.
>>>
>>>DWK
>>>
>>>On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:23:39 -0700 Kathy Dopp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.