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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

> Yes.
>
> Thank you Doug. I woke up this a.m. realizing that fact.

It's Jonathan, but never mind....

>
>
> However, then the City must admit that all voters who voted Doug>Meg
> and did not list a third choice, have their votes diluted to less than
> one vote, since the vote values these voters retain is 1 - 0.0434

Those voters have simply engaged in a kind of contingent abstention,  
having, apparently, no preference beyond Doug & Meg. They hardly have  
any ground for complaint, since both their choices have been elected.

Consider a voter who declines to list even a first choice: her vote  
value is 0, and yet we don't consider that to be "unequal treatment"  
in a plurality election.

>
>
> In either case, no matter which way excess vote values are calculated,
> voters' votes are not valued nor treated equally, nor are the power of
> voters' votes equally applied to determine outcomes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kathy
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Jonathan Lundell  
> <jlundell at pobox.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Kathy Dopp
>
> The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author
> Kathy Dopp's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a
> Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in
> exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at
>
> P.O. Box 680192
> Park City, UT 84068
> phone 435-658-4657
>
> http://utahcountvotes.org
> http://electionmathematics.org
> http://electionarchive.org
>
> How to Audit Election Outcome Accuracy
> http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/VoteCountAuditBillRequest.pdf
>
> History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
> Election Auditing Fundamentals
> http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf
>
> Voters Have Reason to Worry
> http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf