[EM] i also liked what FairVote says about IRV and monotonicity.

[robert bristow-johnson]

"Kristofer Munsterhjelm" [km_elmet at lavabit.com] writes:

> In the case of the Burlington pair, I'd say that the suspect election is 
> the real one, rather than the one where Kiss was raised yet didn't win.

can you elaborate?  which candidate was made to lose because too many people voted for him?

in other words, which of the losers (Wright or Montroll, i presume) would have won in 2009 if they, themselves, had *fewer* votes from any of the 9 groups or combination thereof.  we know that if Wright had received fewer first-choice votes from the W>M>K crowd (those votes would have become M>W>K), that their interests would be better served because Montroll would have advanced to the IRV final round and beaten Kiss.  but it would not have helped Wright win.  so that illustrates a burden of strategic voting placed upon the "GOP Prog-haters" (my terminology), but does not demonstrate non-monotonicity.

non-monotonicity is demonstrated (by Warren) by showing that if Kiss (the IRV winner) gets more first-choice votes (at the expense of Wright), then Kiss loses (to Montroll).  and it *could* be more convincingly demonstrated if one can show that if either Montroll or Wright gets fewer first-choice votes that somehow that same candidate would win,  but i cannot see that in the numbers.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."