[EM] IRV Monotonicity - precision

[Stéphane Rouillon]

You keep presenting this flaw in an incomplete way:

"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of 
no voting) could harm the candidate’s chance of winning..."
This statement is false.

"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of 
another of its preferred candidate) could harm the candidate’s chance of 
winning..."
This is the statement that is right.

Without the details in parenthesis, your statement is vague.
If you want people to follow you, be clear.

Stephane Rouillon.

Kathy Dopp a écrit :
>   The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review
>
>
>             The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
> March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
> Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
> finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of
> elections constitutional.
>
>
>
>             The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review,
> as did the City, by-passing the Court of Appeals process because of
> the lower court’s apparent failure to follow established Supreme Court
> precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.
>
>
>
>             Meanwhile, the Alliance is confident the Supreme Court
> will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s
> acceptance and declaration:
>
>
>
> ·        that with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first
> choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning;
>
>
>
> ·        that other voters will have more of their votes counted than others;
>
>
>
> ·        that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned,
> thus allowing the court to conclude — for the first time ever in state
> law — that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is
> to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;
>
>
>
> ·        all of which do not violate the provisions of United States
> and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal
> protection, or the principle of one-man, one-vote.
>
>
>
> The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing
> shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.
>
>
>
> For more info, contact Andy Cilek 612.990.2533
>
>