<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yes some voters have second-choice considered but they are all still
treated equally.<br>
I agree when you say IRV voters whose first-choice loses in the first
round have their second choices considered.<br>
<pre wrap="">I do not understand why you conclude that then obviously IRV does
not consider the ballots choices of all voters equally. Who is
advantaged during next round according to you?
</pre>
The people whose have their second choices considered or the people who
still have a first choice still running?<br>
<br>
S. Rouillon<br>
<br>
Kathy Dopp a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid391f105b0712251529t1a56050aqd88ad2ab4be1087f@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Dec 25, 2007 2:35 PM, Stéphane Rouillon
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephane.rouillon@sympatico.ca"><stephane.rouillon@sympatico.ca></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Miss Dopp,
I definitively cannot accept this analysis.
What you just wrote SEEMS OBVIOUSLY TRUE WITH IRV to me.
in a non-runoff FPTP single-person-position system, every voter has
their first place choice tabulated and no one has any second-choice
considered and all voters' ballots are treated equally.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
So you are now claiming that No Voter has any second-choices
considered in IRV voting?
Well I must have totally misunderstood IRV then. Pray tell me why are
voters supposed to provide their second choices if "no one has any
second-choice considered" then?
I am mystified.
My understanding was that with IRV voters whose first-choice loses in
the first round have their second choices considered.
If that were true (you claim now it is not) then obviously IRV does
not consider the ballots choices of all voters equally and countably
infinite situations result when candidates whom a majority of voters
do NOT support can win the election.
Kathy
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is obviously not true with IRV.
Kathy
In IRV, every voter has a current preference tabulated and all voters'
ballots are treated equally.
The fact that it is a first, second or fifth preference is definitively
unrelevant when having to consider
the voting method fair or not. The treatment is the same for every voter,
and you cannot say in advance
which voter will be unfairly treated, or less than with FPTP.
And this previous statement is simply unbelievable!!!
my opinion is that it does
not treat all voters' ballots equally and should be considered illegal
under any law that requires the ballots of all voters to be treated
equally.
(...)
Kathy
Obviously to me, IRV ballots are at least as fair than FPTP ballots,
and definitively more precise.
Stéphane Rouillon, ing., M.Sc.A., Ph.D.
Kathy Dopp a écrit :
-
Allen,
Your statement is flatly false.
in a non-runoff FPTP single-person-position system, every voter has
their first place choice tabulated and no one has any second-choice
considered and all voters' ballots are treated equally.
This is obviously not true with IRV.
Kathy
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>