[EM] (no subject)

[James Gilmour]

> > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:20 AM, James Gilmour
> > 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".

> Kathy Dopp  > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 7:06 PM> 
> False. That is not the only concern, but one of several 
> obvious inequities in the IRV counting method, but I do not 
> have time currently to continue this discussion on this list.

At no time I have suggested anything other that this this was ONE of the objections to IRV.  My reading of the affidavits is that is
one of the principal objections and is important because it is a feature that is claimed to render IRV counting "unconstitutional".
It is total irrelevant to my question whether there are other possible objections to IRV and other objections in the affidavits.

My question was simply about Condorcet counting in relation to the feature of IRV counting that was said to handle ballot papers
with different numbers of preferences differently to an extent that was "unconstitutional".  I asked my question because it seemed
from various posts on this list that some who considered IRV flawed in this way would consider Condorcet counting acceptable.  This
leaves me genuinely puzzled.

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