[EM] piling on against IRV

[Kathy Dopp]

> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:19:45 -0400
> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: election-methods Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> On May 10, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>
>>> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:55:19 -0400
>>> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>>> To: election-methods Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>>
>>>>>> However, that does not alter the fact that .
>>>>>
>>>>> they have the choice in *either* TTR or IRV.  and *both* can fail
>>>>> to
>>>>> arrive at the Condorcet winner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I said nothing about the fact that IRV/STV tends to eliminate the
>>>> Condorcet winner prior to the final round,
>>>
>>> i never said you did.  you were taking about IRV failing to elect the
>>> "majority winner" (think about who you mean by such).  in the same
>>> manner, so also does TTR.
>>
>> False claim. *You* were the person to bring up "Condorcet" above,
>> not I.
>
> i never said otherwise.  misrepresentation of another's words.  Strike
> 1.

Twice (once above) and below these are YOUR words, not mine:

>>>>> However, that does not alter the fact that .
>>>>
>>>> they have the choice in *either* TTR or IRV.  and *both* can fail
>>>> to
>>>> arrive at the Condorcet winner

Do you really believe you're fooling everyone here, or are you just
fooling yourself?

>
> you were the person to continue to complain about IRV failing to elect
> the "majority winner" while simultaneously claiming that somehow TTR
> does when both would elect the same candidate under comparable
> conditions.
>
>
>>> TTR doesn't find the majority winner either.  it's no better than
>>
>> False claim. Find *one* TTR election where there was not a majority
>> winner out of all voters who cast votes in the TTR election.
>
> the TTR *together* with the original election (that doesn't have a
> sufficient majority to resolve the election according to the rules)

Exactly as I said earlier. You are fabricating yet another perversion
of the meaning of "majority" to mean a majority out of all the voters
in the PRIOR election rather than the current election!

Between you and Terry, how many clever perversions of the term
"majority" do you think you've invented to try to fool people into
thinking that IRV/STV finds majority winners and top-two runoff does
*not* so you can tell the opposite of the truth?  (that is lying, but
very cleverly albeit.)


> *likely* elects the same candidate as IRV (there is a version of IRV
> that eliminates all but the top-two candidates that is more comparable
> to delayed TTR, but it makes no difference in the IRV failure example
> we both have referenced).  both have the same likelihood of sending
> the wrong pair of candidates to the runoff.  neither would have
> elected the "majority winner" in Burlington in 2009.

I guess you didn't understand all that Abd ul has more than twice now
patiently described to this list then Robert.  Re-read Abd ul's emails
and you'll perhaps understand that TTR and IRV/STV give VERY different
results including:

1. TTR more often overturns the 1st round winner, and

2. TTR allows ALL voters to participate in the final round

3. TTR virtually always finds majority winners

IRV/STV does *not* do any of these on a regular basis.

lies, lies, and more lies. Do you *ever* stop?#@

FACTS do exist outside your imagination. REALLY.  It's actually a
pretty nice place in reality. We all think up things that aren't true,
but then some of us learn to do "reality checks" to see if our
imaginings agree with what happens in the real world or not. Try it.
It's a good habit to get into. Really, you wouldn't have to employ all
the communication tricks you've exhibited here (like fabricating
numerous definitions for a well-known word, deliberately
mischaracterizing what someone said, pretending you didn't say things
you said, name-calling, acting dumb when you really understand
something, changing the subject,...) if you'd just get in touch with
reality. It's much more pleasant because you don't have to recall what
you said last time if you focus on telling the truth and checking that
what you say is the truth, and admitting it when you make a
mistake,...


>
>> You
>> cannot, unless you fabricate yet another wild definition of "majority"
>> where "majority" means a majority of voters, not in the election, but
>> in the prior election.
>
> i see.  so electing Bob Kiss in Burlington 2009 via IRV is not the
> majority candidate,

That's not what I said, but let's see because this is an entirely new
question you're asking me to comment on.

Bob Kiss did *not* have a majority out of all voter's 1st choice votes.

Once IRV/STV proceeds to round #2, the counting process becomes unfair
and the 2nd choices only of some voters are considered.

A majority of voters preferred Montrol over Kiss, and I believe that a
majority of 1st and 2nd choice votes went to Montrol, not Kiss. It
takes far too much time to keep up with all your misleading BS, but
I'd agree with you that definitely Kiss would not be considered a
"majority" winner in any remotely fair voting method, but of course
using yet another of your creative definitions of majority (majority
out of all voters who are lucky enough to have their 1st, and later
choices counted (and excluding voters whose 2nd and later choices are
never considered) perhaps under some new perverse definition of
"majority" that you and Terry Bouricius always manage to dream up, you
might consider Kiss to be a "majority aka Bouricius" winner.


> but since given the TTR rules, the same two
> candidates would have ended up in the delayed runoff, if Bob Kiss was

Ha ha. Very clever, calling an all-new 2nd election "a delayed
runoff".  Never stop with the clever misleading tactic of trying to
fool people into thinking that IRV/STV methods are equivalent to real
runoff elections!

Very entertaining, but time-wasting BS.


> elected then, by the same voters voting the same way as they did in
> 2009, somehow that same candidate *is* the majority candidate.  and if

So, you assume that voters always vote the same way that they do in a
TTR election and in a IRV/STV election where they've been lied to and
told that they can vote sincerely without screwing up and getting a
winner they dislike the most?

You didn't  follow what I typed to you earlier today or yesterday
about your assumptions that you imagine voters to be so smart about
understanding how IRV/STV works (not being misled by Terry's malarky
about sincere voting and not wasting votes) but being entirely stupid
about understanding how plurality works, although they've been using
plurality for decades, so I'm wasting my time typing. Done now.

Perhaps if you'd try rereading and studying and thinking about it for
a while, you could understand. I'm sure you could if you tried to. I
don't think you're trying to.


> far fewer Kiss supporters (those that had any preference of Kiss over
> Wright) had made it to the runoff, if Wright was elected, that would
> be the "majority candidate" even though we already know from the
> information collected that Wright was less preferred than Kiss and he
> was also less preferred than Montroll.
>
>> Any wild distortion of what "majority" means
>
> you can only speak of "majority" when a candidate receives more than
> half of the votes cast.  narrowing down the race to two candidates
> will always get *a* majority (unless they tie), but not necessarily

sigh. Yes true if you redefine "majority" to mean out of only those
voters who remain standing with candidates in the final counting round
with many of those voters having transferred votes from other
candidates after their 1st choices lost, but many of the unluckier
voters not having their 2nd choices considered.

Most people do not define "majority" in the perverse way that IRV/STV
proponents define it. Also of course you continue to ignore common
cases like San Francisco where so many voters are excluded from the
final counting round that San Francisco rarely has majority winners
any more where they used to virtually always have majority winners
under TTR.

> *the* unambiguous majority.  somehow, if the race is narrowed to two

Unambiguous to folks like you and Terry who don't mind bastardizing
the definition of "majority" in order to obtain a lie that they can
mislead the public with. Yes. OK.

> candidates via TTR, you consider that *the* majority.  somehow, the
> IRV supporters consider that the two candidates left standing after
> their kabuki dance of transferred votes and the candidate with more
> votes in that pair results in *the* majority.  but neither of you are
> considering the majority that is evident in other pairs of candidates,
> which is why both your methods fail, in comparison to Condorcet.
>
>>>> Again:
>>>>
>>>> Voters have the CHOICE to vote or not in the real runoff elections,
>>>> unlike with STV/IRV where the more candidates who run for office,
>>>
>>> that (the latter regarding IRV) is false and you've never shown it to
>>> be true.  you just keep repeating the same canard hoping, like
>>> Goebbels, that a lie repeated oft enough evolves in status from
>>> outright falsehood to plausible notion to gospel truth.  it doesn't
>>> but you may continue to pretend otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>> greater number of voters are excluded INVOLUNTARILY from
>>>> participating
>>>> in the final IRV/STV round.
>>>
>>> repeating the falsehood doesn't make it true.
>>
>> False again. Come on, I could explain this to any 10 year old in less
>> than 30 seconds.
>
> that says nothing.  my kids mostly accept mostly whatever i tell them
> (but i have explained the difference between Plurality, IRV, and
> Condorcet to them and they told me they understand it).  they were 10
> and 12 at the time.

OK So now I understand that you think:

1. kids are all stupid and will believe anything

2. Burlington voters are brilliant when it comes to understanding
IRV/STV and thus know that they cannot vote their sincere preferences
under IRV/STV unless they want their least favorite candidate to
possibly win, and they were so briliant that Terry's lies never fooled
them, and

3. Burlington's voters are so incredibly stupid when it comes to
understanding plurality voting that they would not realize that they
would have to vote for one of the two top candidates to avoid risk
that their least favorite would lose

Whatever you have to tell yourself in order for you to buy your own BS!


>
>> Even in Burlington, VT I'm sure that there were fewer voters' ballots
>> being considered in the final counting round than in the 1st round.
>
> only 7% fewer.  compared to our experience of at least 45% fewer in
> delayed TTR elections.

OK. So you DO understand what I was saying earlier and just pretending
not to. Good we're making progress.

Now, try to think about San Francisco, not Burlington, if you're able
to, so you can understand the simpler case there that many voters (a
much higher percentage than in Burlington) are INVOLUNTARILY (the word
is involuntarily) prohibited from participating in the final counting
round EVEN IF (that's even if) they fully rank all the candidates on
the ballot that they are allowed to.


>
> i wouldn't used the word "disenfranchise".  since you continue to
> insist that people are "involuntarily excluded" (they aren't, but i'll

Try re-reading the paragraph I just typed above or any of the other
paragraphs where I've explained this concept to you before and see if
you can't understand it (or stop pretending that you do not understand
it as I suspect.)

> use your language), your method "disenfranchises" 45%

You keep forgetting I said INVOLUNTARILY (involuntarily) Do you know
what INVOLUNTARILY (involuntarily) means?

Look it up in the dictionary if you know how to use one.

Voters have a CHOICE to participate or not with TTR. Do you know what
"choice" means?

TTR is not "my method" but it is one of MANY (many) methods that is
superior to IRV and is not remotely similar to IRV/STV, much as people
like yourself and Terry B. would like to mislead people into thinking
it is. TTR is a fair, equitable method where all voters' votes are
treated equally, no matter who they vote for. It is precinct-summable,
auditable, easy to count and preserves those 7 rights I listed
earlier. Get it yet? IRV/STV NOT THE SAME AS (that's "not equal to")
TTR.  Repeat that 7 times to yourself until it sinks in. TTR= every
voter has the right to participate, elects majority winners virtually
always,.... BIG (big) differences.

OK I've got more important things to do than repeat myself over and
over to someone pretending to be as obtuse as he believes a typical 10
year old is.

Cheers,

Kathy

-- 

Kathy Dopp
http://electionmathematics.org
Town of Colonie, NY 12304
"One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
discussion with true facts."

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

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1451051