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

[Bob Richard]

James Gilmour asks:

> Can you please provide a link to a directory where we can find 
> all of the relevant documents, and with their correct titles,
> as referenced in the various legal texts?

Initial  briefs:
   Plaintiff: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Plaintiff%20brief.pdf
   City of Minneapolis: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Mpls%20brief.pdf
   FairVote Minnesota: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20brief.PDF

Responses to initial briefs:
   Plaintiff: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Plaintiff%20Response.pdf
   City of Minneapolis: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_City%20Response.pdf
   FairVote Minnesota: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20Response.pdf

Replies to the responses:
   Plaintiff: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Plaintiff%20Reply.pdf
   City of Minneapolis: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_City%20Reply.pdf
   FairVote Minnesota: 
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20Reply_0.pdf

Kathy Dopp's affidavit may be the only one submitted so far. I'm not 
aware of any others.
   http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/Affadavit-KD-0929-v7.pdf

-- 
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org

James Gilmour wrote:
> Kathy
> Can you please provide a link to a directory where we can find all of the relevant documents, and with their correct titles, as
> referenced in the various legal texts?
> I found my way to this page of links:	
>   http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/
>
> I have looked at all of the documents listed there and have read some parts of some of them in detail.  The language used is
> confusing in places because the word "vote" is frequently used when the reference is to "ballot paper".  For example, a "vote" has
> only one value, namely "1", but a ballot paper may, at different times, have different values, the maximum of which is "1 vote".
> This distinction between "ballot paper" and "vote" is helpful, if not essential, to a proper understanding of how STV-PR works and
> is applied.  (But perhaps the use of the word "vote" in this way is to comply with some relevant USA legal language?)
>
> From the definitions given in this document:	
>   http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/AMENDED_REV_OrdinanceMNTaskForce.pdf	
> it is clear that for multi-winner STV-PR elections the City of Minneapolis would use the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM)
> for transferring surpluses.  This method uses fractional transfer values ("Gregory"), based on transferring all of the relevant
> ballot papers ("inclusive"), each at the correct value ("weighted").  Thus at no time can any ballot paper ever have a value
> exceeding 1.0000 vote (as they are working to four decimal places).
>
> I cannot comment on the accuracy of the various examples and counter-examples of the WIGM calculations because I cannot be sure I
> have been looking at the correct documents.  It is very difficult to know what is what when a small part of a calculation is
> presented without its full context (but that is typical of legal documents that make lots of cross-references to other documents and
> productions).
>
>
> Leaving all the arithmetical details aside, it would appear from this document:	
>   http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/ReplyMemoJG10-6-08.pdf	
> that the Plaintiffs' main argument against STV-PR is that its use would be "unconstitutional" because the second preferences used to
> transfer surplus votes are examined and given effect before any other second preferences are considered.  This is portrayed as
> creating an inequality of one person's vote compared to another.
>
> It is essential that the surpluses are transferred BEFORE any other action because the destination of the surplus could change what
> has to happen next in identifying the required number of winners from among the larger number of candidates.  Specifically, the
> surplus could reverse the order of the bottom two candidates and so change the one who will be excluded at the next step in the
> counting process (always assuming an exclusion is the next step).
>
> It is a novel idea that giving effect to the contingency choices of the voters in a way that ensures proportional representation
> would be "unconstitutional".
>
> James
>   


-- 
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org