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

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> "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?

Call the original Burlington ballots vA, and the one after Kiss was 
raised, vB.

In vA, under IRV, Kiss wins. In vB, under IRV, Montroll wins. From the 
perspective of vA -> vB, raising Kiss made Kiss lose. From the 
perspective of vB -> vA, lowering Kiss made Kiss win.

What I'm saying is that, IMHO, the suspect (or "wrong") IRV outcome is 
not the one in vB (Montroll won there), but the one in vA (where Kiss 
won although Montroll would have won under almost every other method).

This was simply an example to show the hypothetical dual scenario. In 
reality, it doesn't matter whether vA or vB was the wrong outcome, only 
that monotonicity failure means that at least one of them has to be.