[EM] (no subject)

[James Gilmour]

Kathy Dopp  > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:17 AM
> Your statement oversimplifies and ignores details/differences 
> between IRV and Condorcet.  IRV proponents may pretend not to 
> know that Condorcet methods do not exhibit most of the flaws 
> of IRV counting methods. For example, Condorcet, to my 
> knowledge treats all voters ballots equally, considers all 
> choices on all ballots, 

If I have understood the various submissions correctly, the principal objection to IRV on THIS ground, is that the ballot papers of
voters who express different numbers of preferences are thereby treated differently, and in such a way and to such an extent that
these differences should render the IRV voting system "unconstitutional".

It is correct that Condorcet counting considers all the preferences marked on the ballot papers, in a sequence of pair-wise
contests.  However, Condorcet counting has no option but to treat differently the ballot papers of voters who have expressed
different numbers of preferences, because such voters will be excluded from some of the pair-wise counts.

If this difference in the treatment of ballot papers with different numbers of preferences would be a "fatal" flaw in IRV, would it
not also be a "fatal" flaw in Condorcet counting, and indeed in any other voting system where voters may express different numbers
of preferences?

James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1777 - Release Date: 09/11/2008 09:53