[EM] MN Plaintiffs Case for the Unconstitutionality of IRV/STV

[Kathy Dopp]

Because STV is merely a revised IRV method, STV has all the same flaws
of IRV, plus some.

Here is a copy of the Plaintiffs Appeal doc that was submitted earlier
this week:

http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/MNcase/PlaintiffsStatementofCaseCrt-ofAppeals.pdf

I might have made a stronger point about IRV/STV's unequal treatment
of ballots/voters (counting some voters' second choices, not counting
others' even when their candidate loses, the untimely way that some
voters' second choices are counted, same problems for all 3rd,...
choices - In IRV/STV the only fair round is the first one) than they
did, but I think they did a pretty good job and have an excellent
chance that the MN Supreme Court will declare IRV/STV to be
unconstitutional on the three legal grounds they mention.

Cheers,

-- 

Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author'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://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Post-Election Vote Count Audit
A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal
http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.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