[EM] IRV Monotonicity - precision

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Yes I do, and the no show paradox shows that
by staying home a voter can hope to get some more favourable outcome, 
but not any kind of.

Again if by doing so, there is a most favourable outcome, that most 
favourable outcome cannot be a first choice.
Staying home can help a second choice beat any least preferred choice, a 
third choice beat any least preferred choice and even a before
last choice beat a last choice, but it is impossible that staying home 
makes a first choice win when coming to vote for a first choice would not.

It might even be the only kind of monotonic behavior IRV has: if a 
voters goes to vote for a first preference instead of staying home,
it cannot harm the election of that first choice candidate. However, if 
a voters goes to vote for a first preference instead of voting
for a least preferred candidate, then it could harm the election of that 
first choice candidate.

Stéphane Rouillon.

Kathy Dopp a écrit :
> Stephane,
>
>  IRV also exhibits the "no show" paradox where staying home and not
> voting will achieve a result that is more favorable for the voter than
> voting at all.
>
> Have you seen examples of the no show paradox?
>
> Thanks for suggesting using more precision in my statements though.
>
> Kathy
>
> 2009/3/18 Stéphane Rouillon <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca>:
>   
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20090318/a64c28ee/attachment-0003.htm>