On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Yes. I was the person who pointed out that the City's own example in
its Memo shows how some votes are valued at more than one (1) for some
voters in the City's example (and if the City's example were more
realistic, it would show how some voters' ballots would be valued at
less than one(1) vote.)
If you actually take the time to read my affidavit and the City's
example in its Memo, you will see that Exhibit G and the City's
example clearly mathematically prove the truth of the Plaintiffs'
arguments. The mathematics is irrefutable, despite any argument you
could try to make to divert attention from the mathematical facts.
You've made a miscalculation there, by the way.
At http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/ReplyMemoJG10-6-08.pdf page
5, you write:
"Doug's electors carry a weighted vote — .6667 + .3333 + 0.0434 =
1.0434."
You neglect that fact that Meg does not retain the entire .3333 weight
from the second choices of her transfers from Doug, but rather (.3333
- .0434), just as Doug doesn't retain the entire 1.0000 of his votes,
but rather (1 - .3333).
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
