Hi Jonathan, I know that IRV is nonmonotonic in cases of single winner elections, but what I am asking is have any examples been provided of IRV's non-monotonicity in cases where there are multi-seat elections where excess votes above a threshold number to win a seat are transferred above the established "threshold" level? And the transferred excess votes are transferred to voters' second choice candidates and weighted according to the proportional amount of second choices for each candidate in the excess votes above the threshold?
I.e. Do the URLs you provided show examples of the non-monotonicity of multi-winner IRV elections counted using the above methods of transferring excess votes using mathematical formulae to transfer correct proportions of excess votes? Thanks. Kathy On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote: > >> Thanks for the info. Jonathan. >> >> Do you or does anyone know if this muti-seat IRV method that splits >> votes of voters to their second choice candidates after some winning >> candidates receive the threshold amount of votes, exhibits >> non-monotonicity or not like the normal IRV method does? If so, is >> there an example posted somewhere? > > STV is not monotonic. > > There's a lot of literature on the subject. > > http://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/fall06/cps296.2/stv_hard.pdf > http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/voting.html > <http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/> has a lot of material on STV. > > Terry Bouricius posted a pretty reasonable defense of IRV's > non-monotonicity: http://fairvote.org/monotonicity/ > > > >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kathy >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote: >>> >>>> Does anyone know of another election scheme that allows for the split >>>> of a vote into fractions? Do other jurisdictions with IRV use >>>> fractions to transfer surplus votes over a threshold amount, other >>>> than Minneapolis? >>> >>> Scotland, among others. >>> >>> Though we typically don't call multi-seat STV "IRV". >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kathy Dopp >> >> The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author >> Kathy Dopp's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a >> Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in >> exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at >> >> P.O. Box 680192 >> Park City, UT 84068 >> phone 435-658-4657 >> >> http://utahcountvotes.org >> http://electionmathematics.org >> http://electionarchive.org >> >> How to Audit Election Outcome Accuracy >> >> http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/VoteCountAuditBillRequest.pdf >> >> History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of >> Election Auditing Fundamentals >> >> http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf >> >> Voters Have Reason to Worry >> http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf > > > -- Kathy Dopp The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author Kathy Dopp's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at P.O. Box 680192 Park City, UT 84068 phone 435-658-4657 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://electionarchive.org How to Audit Election Outcome Accuracy http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/VoteCountAuditBillRequest.pdf History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of Election Auditing Fundamentals http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
