[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Kathy Dopp]

> From: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
> Subject: Re: [EM] STV and weighted positional methods

> What is even more puzzling is Ms. Dopp's continued defense of plurality
> voting.


Gee Terry. I guess it must really puzzle you that I would rather:

1. cast a vote and know it helps rather than hurts my favorite
candidate to win (unlike in IRV/STV)

2. have my ballot and all its choices treated equally with all other
voters ballot choices (unlike in IRV/STV)

3. have a method that is precinct-summable so easy to manually count
and audit (unlike in IRV/STV)

4. use a method that does not require computer programs that are so
complex that they are considered to be of exponential runtime to run
and so difficult to accurately write that so far not one US vendor has
written an accurate one (unlike in IRV/STV)

5. allow all voters to participate in the final counting
round/decision on whom to elect.

etc.

Yes. You are very puzzled Terry that I would want a fair, equitable
system for counting votes.

 I, on the other hand, am very puzzled by your desire to implement a
voting method that is far less fair and equitable, in almost every
single way, than our existing voting method is.

Since the only logically accurate reason for wanting to implement
IRV/STV instead of any of the possible other voting methods that are
monotonic, precinct-summable, treat voters equally, and produce far
fairer results is either:

1. to help some voting system vendor handsomely profit by the sale of
new software and equipment that can count IRV, or

2. to help implement a voting method that is virtually impossible and
very costly at best to manually audit after elections so that someone
you know, perhaps, can have a better chance of committing undetectable
fraud.

Which reason is it, or do you just have some emotional attachment to
implementing the most inequitable, costly, complex voting method
available?

Cheers,

Kathy