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

[James Gilmour]

Jonathan Lundell  > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:18 PM
> 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.

Jonathan, we can much further than that.  Never mind the elector who declines to vote, what about the 50% of those who do mark their
first preferences in plurality elections only to have the value of their votes set to zero by the voting system?  Is that "unequal
treatment"?  Is that "unconstitutional"?

I don’t know if it's "unconstitutional", but I do know it is extremely unfair (treats different voters VERY differently) and
produces very unrepresentative results.  It is amazing (and extremely sad) that so many clever people will strain at a gnat like
non-monotonicity but swallow a camel like grossly distorted representation.

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1713 - Release Date: 07/10/2008 18:40