[EM] Does IRV elect "majority winners?"

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Sat Jan 3 14:26:37 PST 2009

> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:29:23 -0500
> From: "Terry Bouricius"
> However the norm in governmental elections is to discount all abstainers
> from the basis, regardless of the manner of their abstention.


You redefine "abstainer" from the common usage of a person who does
not vote in an election contest, to the unfortunate person who didn't
happen to vote for one of the two candidates left standing in the
final IRV/STV counting round.

Again, this may be a clever way to mislead the public by using a very
unusual definition of what a majority winner is by first defining
majority as 50% plus one of a group of voters who does not abstain
from voting and then redefining the concept of "abstainer" to a person
who does not vote for one of the particular candidates who are left in
the final IRV/STV counting round.

It seems that IRV/STV proponents have no limit for the convolutions
they'll use to justify their own unique definitions of commonly
understood concepts like "majority" in order to mislead the public
into supporting IRV/STV.



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list