[EM] One person/one vote

Wed Aug 3 08:55:35 PDT 2016

Kathy is an old IRV detractor that i recall from the days that Burlington Vermont was debating and repealing IRV (after our goofed-up election in 2009 and the repeal vote in 2010).
that "one-person-one-vote" thing was one of their empty talking points along with
"disenfranchisement" (the latter had some applicability in San Francisco and Oakland because the number of candidates greatly exceeded the number of ranking levels, but that was not the case in Burlington in either 2006 or 2009, the only times IRV was used).

there were a
few other empty talking points and some not so empty (Burlington 2009 demonstrated a clear spoiler effect and a potential non-monotonicity and any IRV fails precinct-summability).

any complaint regarding "one-person-one-vote" that Kathy (or someone else) levels against
IRV, could just as well be leveled against Schulze or any other Condorcet-compliant method because they all use the same ranked-ballot.  it's just bogus.

One Person One Vote means a few different things:
1.  It means my access to voting and the strength of my vote
counts as much as any other person.
2. It means I may not register to vote at more than one residential location (like in two precincts or districts or even two states) and vote twice.
3. It means that (with the only exception of the U.S. Senate) every representative in whatever
legislative body (House of Representatives, state legislature, city council) has, roughly (the courts have been sticking to 10% variance) the same population of persons represented.  So that each constituent has, through their representative, about the same amount of influence in that
legislative body.

IRV has problems.  but it doesn't have *that* particular problem.
Sorry Kathy, but we gotta call you out on this.
r b-j

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] One person/one vote

From: "Ken B" <kbearman at isd.net>

Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 11:38 am

To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> <html>

> <head>

> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"

> http-equiv="Content-Type">

> </head>

> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">

> <p><font face="Comic Sans MS">That's grossly false.  A ranking on a

> ballot isn't a vote until it's counted.<br>

> <br>

> Each time there's a round of counting in an IRV election, a

> voter's top remaining choice on their ballot is counted.  If a

> voter's #1 choice remains, that is the voter's vote and is

> counted.  If that voter's #1 choice remains in every round of

> counting, that voter's vote is counted in every round.<br>

> <br>

> If, in an IRV round, a voter's #1 choice was eliminated, that

> voter's vote for her/his #2 choice is counted.  Calling that a

> second vote for this voter but ignoring the second time the

> other voter's #1 choice is counted is grossly a double standard.<br>

> <br>

> Use facts.  That's what our Supreme Court did when it ruled that

> Minneapolis's Ranked Choice Voting system is constitutional. 

> That's what it did in 1915 when it ruled that Duluth's Bucklin

> Voting system was unconstitutional.<br>

>   - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN<br>

> <br>

> </font>On 8/1/2016 4:07 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:<br>

> </p>

> <blockquote

> cite="mid:CANqewJT-hmx3UHJO8iNUb6KZ4Erp+6S_cjEqq7DuAB-g1yfyLA at mail.gmail.com"

> type="cite">

> <pre wrap="">Sennet, IRV grossly violates the one person/one vote requirement

> because, even if all voters rank the same number of candidates, say 3,

> some voters never have their 2nd or 3rd choices considered, even

> though their 1st choice loses, whereas other voters may have all 3

> choices considered or have their 1st choice win. Range voting at

> least uses a fundamentally fair counting method, unlike IRV, which can

> easily eliminate the favorite candidate of a majority of voters and,

> most often, does not elect a candidate supported by a majority of

> voters.

>

> Sennet Williams Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 145, Issue 6?

> </pre>

> <blockquote type="cite">

> <blockquote type="cite">

> <pre wrap="">range voting is illegal in the u.s.,? simple.? it violates the one person-one vote law.? IRV/condorcet is definitely the most logical voting system for identifying the most popular candidate.? Due to cultural evolution, IRV will? finally be enacted and end all the
wars caused by parliament, the govt. of war.
> </pre>

> </blockquote>

> </blockquote>

> </blockquote>

> </body>

> </html>

>

> ----

> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

>

--

r b-j                      rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160803/4756d8be/attachment.htm>