[EM] IRV vs Plurality (back to the pile count controversy)

[robert bristow-johnson]

i just want to settle the issue about how many piles one needs to be  
"precinct summable" when there are N candidates.

Kathy was pointing to Abd ul as the qualified actor who "refuted" the  
falsifiable assertion that i made that you needed only 9 piles for 3  
candidates.  She repeated labeled (without any justification other  
than citing Abd ul's blather) the math that i clearly presented as  
"illogical".  Abd ul did nothing to support Kathy's assertion.

Kathy, fancying herself as an election security expert, continues to  
try to taint IRV as being insecure because it's not "precinct  
summable".  and that is a demonstrably false claim.

i'll leave it to the experts here to judge who was trying to stay on  
topic and who was decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio with  
unnecessary text (with aim to distract from the core issue and to  
denigrate the other side).

r b-j

On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> People, please. This is not a debate class, and even if it were,  
> "no, I won" is really useless even if true. Please take this  
> discussion off list, if you find it important enough not to stop.  
> There's practically no voting system content left. As for what is  
> left: we all know that the number of piles is large, that full  
> ballots can be transmitted, and we can work out the implications to  
> our own perhaps-incorrect satisfaction.
>
> Respectfully to you both, but tired of this wordy debate,
> Jameson

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."