<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yes I do, and the no show paradox shows that<br>
by staying home a voter can hope to get some more favourable outcome,
but not any kind of.<br>
<br>
Again if by doing so, there is a most favourable outcome, that most
favourable outcome cannot be a first choice.<br>
Staying home can help a second choice beat any least preferred choice,
a third choice beat any least preferred choice and even a before<br>
last choice beat a last choice, but it is impossible that staying home
makes a first choice win when coming to vote for a first choice would
not. <br>
<br>
It might even be the only kind of monotonic behavior IRV has: if a
voters goes to vote for a first preference instead of staying home,<br>
it cannot harm the election of that first choice candidate. However, if
a voters goes to vote for a first preference instead of voting<br>
for a least preferred candidate, then it could harm the election of
that first choice candidate.<br>
<br>
Stéphane Rouillon.<br>
<br>
Kathy Dopp a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f105b0903181904v39baddc2md76f04ca2894495a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Stephane,
IRV also exhibits the "no show" paradox where staying home and not
voting will achieve a result that is more favorable for the voter than
voting at all.
Have you seen examples of the no show paradox?
Thanks for suggesting using more precision in my statements though.
Kathy
2009/3/18 Stéphane Rouillon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephane.rouillon@sympatico.ca"><stephane.rouillon@sympatico.ca></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You keep presenting this flaw in an incomplete way:
"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of no
voting) could harm the candidate’s chance of winning..."
This statement is false.
"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of
another of its preferred candidate) could harm the candidate’s chance of
winning..."
This is the statement that is right.
Without the details in parenthesis, your statement is vague.
If you want people to follow you, be clear.
Stephane Rouillon.
Kathy Dopp a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of
elections constitutional.
The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review,
as did the City, by-passing the Court of Appeals process because of
the lower court’s apparent failure to follow established Supreme Court
precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.
Meanwhile, the Alliance is confident the Supreme Court
will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s
acceptance and declaration:
· that with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first
choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning;
· that other voters will have more of their votes counted than
others;
· that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned,
thus allowing the court to conclude — for the first time ever in state
law — that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is
to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;
· all of which do not violate the provisions of United States
and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal
protection, or the principle of one-man, one-vote.
The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing
shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.
For more info, contact Andy Cilek 612.990.2533
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>