[EM] Defeat Strength

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 09/09/2022 12:16 PM EDT James Gilmour <jamesgilmour at f2s.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> In an STV-PR election (a.k.a. RCV), the voter's second and any subsequent preferences are contingency choices, to be used only in
> the contingency that the voter's first choice candidate cannot be elected (because of lack of support) or has already been elected
> to represent a full quota of voters (and so does not need the additional support).
> 

But James, we know that that is not always the case.  Burlington 2009 and now, Alaska 2022, are counter-examples that disprove that.

In Burlington 2009, Kurt Wright voters were promised (as we all were promised) that if their first-choice cannot win, their second-choice vote is counted.  Wright was defeated and those voters' second-choice votes were not counted.  Had their second-choice votes been counted, a different candidate for mayor would have been elected.

Yesterday, the Alaska Division of Elections released the Cast Vote Records, and now we know this was repeated in Alaska last month.  Sarah Palin voters were promised (as we all were promised) that if their first-choice cannot win, their second-choice vote is counted.  Palin was defeated and those voters' second-choice votes were not counted.  Had their second-choice votes been counted, a different candidate for U.S. Congress would have been elected.

These are cold hard facts supported by the public record that cannot be disputed.

> Where a voter does not mark a preference against every candidate, that voter is telling the Returning Officer that he or she has no
> preference among the unmarked candidates,

But that voter is expressing on their ballot that he or she **does** have a preference of *any* marked candidate over *any* of the unmarked candidates.  That is equivalent to that all unmarked candidates are tied for last-choice preference on that ballot.

> and that if any choice has to be made among those candidates, he or she is happy to leave
> that decision to those voters who do have preferences among those candidates.  Unmarked preferences mean nothing more than "I have
> opted out at this point and leave any further decisions to others".
> 

No.  That's not true.  Unmarked preferences mean "I prefer these candidates less than I prefer any candidates that I have marked".

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.