[EM] Fwd: FW: IRV Challenge - Press Announcement

[Kathy Dopp]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM,
<election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Aaron Armitage <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: FW: IRV Challenge - Press Announcement
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Message-ID: <39816.15264.qm at web39608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On your site, you also include a brief attacking multiwinner STV, at http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/ReplyMemoJG10-6-08.pdf. Do you agree with the argument presented?

Yes. I was the person who pointed out that the City's own example in
its Memo shows how some votes are valued at more than one (1) for some
voters in the City's example (and if the City's example were more
realistic, it would show how some voters' ballots would be valued at
less than one(1) vote.)

If you actually take the time to read my affidavit and the City's
example in its Memo, you will see that Exhibit G and the City's
example clearly mathematically prove the truth of the Plaintiffs'
arguments.  The mathematics is irrefutable, despite any argument you
could try to make to divert attention from the mathematical facts.

There is only one argument that is made in the Plaintiffs Reply Memo
that I have not yet taken the time to supply an example to
mathematically prove is true, but examples are readily available to
show the factual truth of every statement in the Plaintiffs' Reply,
and the algebra to prove that votes are diluted or inflated below and
above one (1) are also derivable, but examples are easier for the
Court to understand.

Cheers,

Kathy