[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Kathy Dopp]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, robert bristow-johnson
>> <rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm glad to hear you don't support IRV/STV methods.
>
> not over Condorcet.
>
> i dunno what else you could have drawn from either my posts here or at the
> FairVote.org site where i took on Rob Ritchie *several* times (and i've seen
> you there, too).

My entire life's focus is not in following all election methods debates.

>
>>>> There are several scenarios where voters' marked 2nd choices are never
>>>> counted, even when their first choice loses,
>>>
>>> if their 1st choice loses at some time before the final round, their 2nd
>>> choice is promoted to 1st choice and is not removed until after *it*
>>> loses.
>>>  but for it to lose, it is counted and, by the dumb IRV rules, is
>>> considered
>>> to come up short.
>>
>> No. As Abd ul pointed out your claim is true only when the voter's 2nd
>> choice has not already been eliminated as happens *very* frequently in
>> IRV when a majority-favorite candidate is eliminated before the final
>> counting round or when any voters' 2nd choice candidates are
>> eliminated prior to his first choice being eliminated.
>>
>> This is the main reason why the IRV/STV counting method is so
>> fundamentally unfair - because it does not treat all voters' ballots
>> equally.
>>
>> It seems funny to me that you call candidates "it".
>
>
> i call the vote or ranking "it".

"It loses" is what you said, clearly referring to candidates that
voters rank. Reread to see.

>> The majority of voters favored the centrist candidate who was
>> eliminated, typical IRV/STV style.
>
> that happened in Burlington in 2009 (but not in 2006).  that failure is what
> has been my sole concern about this whole thing for 10 months.

Great.

>>> if you use the mayoral vote as a measure, in Burlington Vermont, there
>>> are
>>> more Progs than Dems.
>>
>> Again, you are considering first choice votes only, which would have
>> been far different if voters in Burlington had not been falsely misled
>> by Fair Vote propaganda into thinking that it was safe for them to
>> "vote their conscience" or "vote sincerely" which is certainly a
>> recipe for a majority of voters to get their least desired outcome in
>> IRV/STV methods.
>>
>>>
>>> but the elimination criterion is faulty in IRV, I KNOW THAT (next time
>>> you
>>> call me an "IRV proponent", i am going to remind you that you don't
>>> read).

Reread. Unlike you stating "You don't read" as if you have all-seeing
ability to know that I never read, I **never** said "You are an IRV
proponent". Please try to stop confusing your own imagination with
reality and notice what I actually wrote and what you actually have
ability to know, when responding to emails.

>
> about this, Kathy, i don't believe your veracity at all.  since March of
> 2009 (when Burlington IRV failed to elect the Condorcet winner and all sorts

OK Robert, I guess I won't argue anymore with your claim that you know
that "I don't read" even though you have never once met me in person
and know zero about what I spend my time doing.  Fine, you believe
that you have Godlike abilities to know all and see all about what I
do with my time inside your own imagination at least.  It's clear.

> repeatedly, i keep wondering why folks like you pass over Condorcet, that in

"folks like me" who don't read you mean? Or exactly what slurr are you
now hurling at me since you obviously never asked me whether or not I
support the Condorcet method, you seem to rely once again on your own
imagination to proclaim what my position is, which you obviously
imagine you know better than I do.

In my own imagination, I **do** support the Condorcet method, although
I don't know how to solve the Condorcet cycles or how often, if ever,
they might occur.

However, I see that once again you are certain that you know more
about myself, what I do, and my own positions, than I do via your own
imagination, which it seems, you feel no need to verify with any
outside facts.


> but my position here has *never* been as a proponent of IRV, but a proponent
> of Condorcet and the ranked ballot.
>
> i've said multiple times that IRV transferred the burden of having to vote
> strategically from the majority (in Burlington, that would be the liberal
> that would have to split their votes between Prog and Dem) to the minority
> (in Burlington that would be the GOP Prog-haters that discovered that their
> primary vote for their favorite candidate was instrumental in electing the
> candidate they least preferred).

GREAT. Well we agree on many things, even if I think you are slightly
delusional for thinking you know so much more about me than I do re.
my "not reading" and my positions on election methods.

Kathy

> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
>



-- 

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf