[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Kathy Dopp]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:22 PM,
<election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:
> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>        election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
I give up.  Both Abd ul and I have tried to explain this to Robert
with Abd ul even listing all the possible unique ballot orderings when
there are 3 candidates, and Robert still doesn't get it.

Can anyone else that Robert may be more willing to comprehend, please
try to explain how to list and count or how to caculate the number of
unique ballot combinations with rank choice voting to him?

Also, someone else besides myself needs to tell Robert how many
tallies there are with the Condorcet method as well because he insists
on using a nonsensical formula for that too.

Thanks.  Robert obviously thinks he is too smart to learn anything
from me, so someone else will have to try to educate him.

Cheers,

Kathy

> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:15:21 -0500
> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: EM Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs Plurality (Dave Ketchum) (Kathy Dopp)
> Message-ID:
>        <26BC30A1-8C87-4B06-945A-8B271933AE70 at audioimagination.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:14:23 -0500
>>> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>>> To: EM Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs Plurality (Dave Ketchum)
>>>>
>>>> Don't know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> consider Burlington 2009 with the inconsequential candidates Simpson
>>> and "write-in" eliminated and very real (but otherwise last)
>>> candidate Dan Smith eliminated.  that least Wright, Montroll, and
>>> Kiss.  with only those three left, these are the pile counts of the
>>> only salient permutations of marked ballots:
>>>
>>>   1332  M>K>W
>>>    767  M>W>K
>>>    455  M
>>>   2043  K>M>W
>>>    371  K>W>M
>>>    568  K
>>>   1513  W>M>K
>>>    495  W>K>M
>>>   1289  W
>>>
>>> now, Kathy, ask yourself why there are no piles marked just M>K or
>>> M>W or K>M or K>W or W>M or W>K?  (those are the 6 piles you want to
>>> enumerate in your 15.)
>>
>> Robert, Your slip is showing again.
>
> no slip nor nuttin' else under me kilt.  want me to show you?
>
>> Exactly as I tried to point out to you, you were either disallowing
>> voters to rank only two candidates or to rank all three.
>
> no, it has nothing at all to do with allowing or disallowing the
> voters to
>
>>   I see I was
>> correct and you are disallowing voters to rank only two candidates and
>> have, as Abd ul also pointed out to you, left 3 choose 2 or 6 possible
>> choices out of your list.
>
> because all unmarked candidates are tied for last place, when there
> is only one unmarked candidate, there is *no* consequential
> difference between leaving that candidate unmarked or marking that
> candidate last.
>
>>
>> Unfortunately for your system of disallowing voters to rank only two
>> choices, US courts would rule that any such ballots where voters rank
>> only two choices as legal votes that must be counted, so you cannot
>> have a voting system in the US which disallows those choices.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> All your formulas are incorrect.
>>>
>>> and, since you don't understand your opponent's argument, then your
>>> evaluation of it is authoritative.
>>
>> Robert I just proved you wrong, as did Abd ul earlier.  So please try
>> again if you think your other formula is correct, because
>> mathematically provably both your formulas are obviously incorrect to
>> any election methods expert on this list or any mathematician or
>> probabilist, not just to me.
>>
>> Reality is a really nice place Robert. I invite you sincerely to join
>> us in the real world.
>
>
> Kathy, come to the USENET newsgroup comp.dsp someday.  i'm quite used
> to analyzing and sometimes deconstructing arguments.
>
> you haven't made a dent.
>
> --
>
> 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