[EM] piling on against IRV

[Kathy Dopp]

> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: election-methods Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Condorcet, but reminded you that both IRV and TTR have the same
> failing to elect the "majority winner" (which *is* your words),

False claim as I suspect that you full well know, but in case you
really do not understand that when there are only two candidates in an
election, it is virtually certain that one of the two candidates will
have a majority of the votes out of voters who cast votes in that TTR
election, then I commiserate with your never having learned how to
count or do arithmetic.  Perhaps you could take a course in elementary
school arithmetic to catch up on your skills.

> no, you were *not* including the original election with the TTR.  i
> was responding to this:

Yes.  IRV/STV proponents like to pretend that a TTR is not an
election, but only a part of one election.

Reality check.  TTR is a separate stand-alone runoff election and that
is why a two-election system with a runoff is far superior to an
IRV/STV one-election system.

Real life is out here Robert. TTR is one election - all by itself - It
is not remotely similar to one round in an IRV/STV election.

Let's see:

1. TTR elections take place months apart from the general or primary
election that precedes them.

2. TTR elections allow all voters who wish to participate by voting to do so.

3. TTR elections more often overturn the initial election winner.

4. TTR elections use a separate ballot from the months' prior former
(also separate) election.

YES.  In *REAL LIFE* TTR **IS an ELECTION**, not one round of an
IRV/STV election!

Do you think you can possibly understand the concept of two separate
elections versus two rounds in one election Robert or is it too
complex for you to understand the differences between two different
systems at the same time? I.e. does everything but STV/IRV go entirely
out of your head when you discuss this stuff?  I have a similar
problem with foreign languages. I tend to forget English when I learn
a foreign language, but I've never had that problem like you seem to
with other complex concepts.

>
> if you're considering *only* the runoff election, with only two
> candidates, there is no question, between the two, who is has the
> "majority".  but just because there is a "majority winner" in the

YES. YOU **DO** understand the concept. As I thought, you were only
pretending not to.

> runoff (whether it's TTR or IRV) doesn't mean that *THE* majority
> winner made it to the runoff.

As I have *always* pointed out, because I like to stay in touch at all
times with reality, plurality elections, JUST LIKE IRV/STV, are also
subject to the spoiler candidate effect.  I stated that in this
thread. I'm not surprised you missed it though.

Since BOTH IRV/STV and plurality have the same spoiler effect flaw
though, that certainly is not a reason, as you seem to think, to argue
to switch to an STV/IRV system that still has the spoiler effect, but
in addition has these 7 flaws. These are the DIFFERENCES I stated
between IRV/STV and plurality.  Try to understand now, that I am not
claiming untrue things in real life (like plurality doesn't have the
spoiler effect) just because you think I am inside your head.

Here, again, is what I said some of the differences are between
plurality and IRV/STV

1. IRV/STV remove the right cast a vote with a positive effect on a
candidate’s chances of winning.

2. IRV/STV remove the right to participate in the final decision of
who wins the election by eliminating voters’ ballots prior to the
final counting round. The more candidates, the more voters are
eliminated prior to the final counting round.

3. IRV/STV remove the right to have one’s votes counted equally and
fairly with all other voters’ votes because only voters supporting the
least popular candidates as their 1st choice are assured of having
their 2nd choice candidate counted when their 1st choice candidate
looses.

4. In comparison with top‐two runoff elections, IRV/STV remove the
right to elect majority winners. San Francisco had to eliminate its
legal right to elect majority winners when it adopted IRV/STV because
STV routinely elects winners with far less than 50% of the votes.

5. IRV/STV remove the right to a transparent, verifiable election
process with a decentralized, simple counting process that can be
easily manually counted and audited.

6. IRV/STV removes the right to have an economical election process.

7. IRV/STV removes the right to change one’s mind between the primary
and general election and to have time to get to know the candidates.



>
> i am including *both* the original election that has more than 2
> candidates and the TTR (*or* the final runoff in IRV) as *one*
> election because that is what it is.


NO two elections are *not* one election. Repeat 7 times: "Two
elections are not one election" so you can remember that fact.
>
> the perversion of "majority winner" i have is the unambiguous majority
> winner that beats every other candidate with a majority of votes when
> the voters are asked to choose between the two (that is the Condorcet
> winner).

OK. If you want to define the Condorcet winner as the majority winner
(and I have no problem with defining it that way when all rank choices
on rank choice ballots are considered), then Burlington, VT mayoral
contest proves that IRV/STV eliminates the majority winner prior to
the final counting round and elects a non-majority winner.

Thanks for agreeing with me that IRV/STV does *not* find majority
winners!  Nice surprise.


i have been consistently trying to steer clear of a notion
> of "majority winner" for some candidate how beats *one* other
> candidate with a majority because only that particular runoff was
> considered.  TTR and IRV both consider only one final runoff between a
> pair of candidates that are selected by their own flawed methods.

OK. However there are 7 flaws that IRV/STV has that TTR does not, as
listed above.


> both you and the IRV proponents like to call the winner of your runoff
> *the* "majority winner",

But the big difference is that the TTR winner *is* virtually always
the majority winner of that election, whereas the IRV/STV winner more
often is not.

TTR is far far superior an electoral method than IRV/STV for the 7
reasons listed above.


> but neither you nor the IRV proponents want
> to consider that the unambiguous majority winner might not make it to
> that single runoff given the rules of TTR or IRV.  Condorcet considers
> *every* conceivable runoff pair.  TTR and IRV consider only one
> particular runoff pair and are oblivious to the problem that it might
> be the wrong pair.

OK. False mischaracterization of my opinion and ignoring what I've
already repeated more than once in this thread, but if it helps you
make your case for STV/IRV to constantly mischaracterize my positions,
I can understand why you lack the information to make your case
without mischaracterizing.


> alright.  that's it.  you've misrepresented me for the last time.  the
> last time that i will read anyway, Kathy.

Will you please stop sending this list so much BS then, where you
pretend not to understand stuff you obviously do?  That would be a
happy day.

>
> you know, as well as everyone here, that i do not say, nor ever said,
> that IRV consistently finds the majority winner (sometimes it does,
> when it happens to elect the Condorcet winner).  you know, as well as
> everyone else here that i am a sharp critic of IRV.

OK.  then we agree don't we.  I thought you really understood this stuff.

>
> Abd apparently tried to circumvent my kill-filing of his overly
> verbose EM posts by emailing directly to me his last one (i think it

Nice way to discount Abd ul's informative emails, and avoid learning
anything, just "kil-file" them.  Not a surprising approach from you.
File that with your other tactics for ignoring reality.

> was his last one, since any others were deleted upon reception).  i
> want to be open to receiving a regular email from him or you.  but as
> far as my "franchise" with the election-methods list, you have joined
> Abd by being kicked off of it.  and if either of you try to circumvent
> that by emailing me an EM post directly (without "election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> " as any recipient), then i will consider that abuse and killfile all
> email from your address.
>
> you're abusive and dishonest, Kathy.

Name-calling virtually always reveals much more about the name-caller
than the person being called names. Don't forget those three fingers
pointing back at you whenever you reveal your insides by name-calling.

I am known amongst everyone for being "honest to a fault" with
emphasis on the word "fault".  Whenever someone calls me names that I
know do not remotely apply to myself, I recognize that they are
"projecting" what is inside themselves onto others, imagining that
others think the same way they do.  You should give that careful
thought every time you decide to use name-calling as your tactic.

> something i would have hoped you
> would have outgrown 5 decades ago.  such a shame and undignified for a
> woman of your age.

I outgrew dishonesty when I was 5 years old, and can recall painfully
every deliberate lie I've told since, which is very very few.  I also
learned to do reality-checking, and avoid name-calling a long time ago
and am very glad to have done so.

>
> it might be interesting to read how many others have killfiled your
> posts.  because i surely don't see anyone else responding (and i
> wouldn't know if Abd is or not).

I do apologize if my blunt honesty hurt your feelings, but I am trying
to get you to think outside your box and do some reality-checking, and
I lack patience for people who pretend and mischaracterize so much.
It's one of my flaws.

-- 

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