On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Yes.
Thank you Doug. I woke up this a.m. realizing that fact.
It's Jonathan, but never mind....
However, then the City must admit that all voters who voted Doug>Meg
and did not list a third choice, have their votes diluted to less than
one vote, since the vote values these voters retain is 1 - 0.0434
Those voters have simply engaged in a kind of contingent abstention,
having, apparently, no preference beyond Doug & Meg. They hardly have
any ground for complaint, since both their choices have been elected.
Consider a voter who declines to list even a first choice: her vote
value is 0, and yet we don't consider that to be "unequal treatment"
in a plurality election.
In either case, no matter which way excess vote values are calculated,
voters' votes are not valued nor treated equally, nor are the power of
voters' votes equally applied to determine outcomes.
Cheers,
Kathy
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Jonathan Lundell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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).
--
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
