[EM] (no subject)

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 23:28:01 -0000 James Gilmour wrote:
> Dave Ketchum  > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:59 PM
> 
>>I have not inspected the affidavits for completeness or 
>>correctness.  I am only comparing the methods.
>>
>>Assuming IRV's rules result in declaring A or B winner, it would not care 
>>or look at what this voter may have said about C or D.
>>
>>Condorcet looks at all that the voters say, and uses all of that in 
>>deciding on a winner - as to C and D the possibilities are:
>>      C>D
>>      D>C
>>      C=D = the voter indicates equal liking by giving them 
>>the same rank or by ranking neither.
> 
> 
> There is only one legitimate interpretation of the "A>B" ballot paper in a Condorcet count with regard to the "C" vs. "D" pair-wise
> contest  -  the voter has given the Returning Officer no information.  No-one is entitled make any supposition  -  that voter has
> expressed no preference at all as between "C" and "D".

Disagreed, for Condorcet will see that the voter has assigned equal rank.
> 
> However, all of this is totally irrelevant to what is in the affidavits and what my question was about.  In the affidavits it is
> asserted that because IRV would treat differently the ballot papers marked "A>B>C>D" and "A>B", this is ONE of the reasons why IRV
> counting should be declared "unconstitutional".  However, some of those who have taken this position, have in posts to this list,
> indicated that they would accept Condorcet counting.  But Condorcet counting would also treat these two ballot papers differently.  

Now we are into adequacy of affidavits.

If IRV assigns A or B as winner it will treat the ballots as identical, 
without caring what might be said about C or D.

After assigning both A and B to be losers the remainder of the ballots will 
be considered:
      A>B - all that this voter chose to say has been processed.
      >C>D - this voter's additional data will be considered.

Leaves me voting for constitutionality - both voters were allowed to say as 
much as they chose to.

That IRV's rules do not require using all data provided by voters is 
interesting, but the rules do not provide any way to use more.
> 
> That leaves me genuinely puzzled as to how one such difference could be "unconstitutional" but the other not.  This is a very
> important question because if IRV is held to be "unconstitutional" on THIS ground, then a whole raft of other voting systems,
> including Condorcet counting, would also have to be considered "unconstitutional".
> 
> James Gilmour
-- 
  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.