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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

> 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.

You've made a miscalculation there, by the way.

At http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/ReplyMemoJG10-6-08.pdf page  
5, you write:

"Doug's electors carry a weighted vote — .6667 + .3333 + 0.0434 =  
1.0434."

You neglect that fact that Meg does not retain the entire .3333 weight  
from the second choices of her transfers from Doug, but rather (.3333  
- .0434), just as Doug doesn't retain the entire 1.0000 of his votes,  
but rather (1 - .3333).