[EM] Kathy D, would you be so kind to respond to the question i asked?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:57 PM 11/3/2009, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>thanx,

The question is quoted below. It's a loaded question. Kathy Dopp is 
an election security expert, and doesn't necessarily "promote" any 
voting system, but she'd like the system to be precinct summable, for 
sure. She is also aware of the other issues caused by 
non-monotonicity, and the peculiar and nauseating LNH satisfaction 
(see the original paper in which Later No Harm was defined, what's 
his name?) of STV,  and I assume she'd be likely to support Approval, 
Range, Bucklin, or possibly a Condorcet-compliant method, which can 
be matrix-summed, and it's likely that most elections wouldn't 
require even that.

>r b-j
>
>On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>>
>>>5. It always amazes me how irrationally the supporters of IRV/STV
>>>support a nonmonotonic system that creates more problems than it
>>>solves when there are clearly better alternatives available that
>>>actually solve more problems than they create.
>>
>>so, Kathy, i am curious as to which of these better alternatives
>>you promote?