James Gilmour asks:
Can you please provide a link to a directory where we can find
all of the relevant documents, and with their correct titles,
as referenced in the various legal texts?
Initial briefs:
Plaintiff:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Plaintiff%20brief.pdf
City of Minneapolis:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Mpls%20brief.pdf
FairVote Minnesota:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20brief.PDF
Responses to initial briefs:
Plaintiff:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Plaintiff%20Response.pdf
City of Minneapolis:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_City%20Response.pdf
FairVote Minnesota:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20Response.pdf
Replies to the responses:
Plaintiff:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_Plaintiff%20Reply.pdf
City of Minneapolis:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_City%20Reply.pdf
FairVote Minnesota:
http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20Reply_0.pdf
Kathy Dopp's affidavit may be the only one submitted so far. I'm not
aware of any others.
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/Affadavit-KD-0929-v7.pdf
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
James Gilmour wrote:
Kathy
Can you please provide a link to a directory where we can find all of the
relevant documents, and with their correct titles, as
referenced in the various legal texts?
I found my way to this page of links:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/
I have looked at all of the documents listed there and have read some parts of
some of them in detail. The language used is
confusing in places because the word "vote" is frequently used when the reference is to
"ballot paper". For example, a "vote" has
only one value, namely "1", but a ballot paper may, at different times, have different
values, the maximum of which is "1 vote".
This distinction between "ballot paper" and "vote" is helpful, if not
essential, to a proper understanding of how STV-PR works and
is applied. (But perhaps the use of the word "vote" in this way is to comply
with some relevant USA legal language?)
From the definitions given in this document:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/AMENDED_REV_OrdinanceMNTaskForce.pdf
it is clear that for multi-winner STV-PR elections the City of Minneapolis
would use the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM)
for transferring surpluses. This method uses fractional transfer values
("Gregory"), based on transferring all of the relevant
ballot papers ("inclusive"), each at the correct value ("weighted"). Thus at
no time can any ballot paper ever have a value
exceeding 1.0000 vote (as they are working to four decimal places).
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the various examples and counter-examples
of the WIGM calculations because I cannot be sure I
have been looking at the correct documents. It is very difficult to know what
is what when a small part of a calculation is
presented without its full context (but that is typical of legal documents that
make lots of cross-references to other documents and
productions).
Leaving all the arithmetical details aside, it would appear from this document:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/ReplyMemoJG10-6-08.pdf
that the Plaintiffs' main argument against STV-PR is that its use would be
"unconstitutional" because the second preferences used to
transfer surplus votes are examined and given effect before any other second
preferences are considered. This is portrayed as
creating an inequality of one person's vote compared to another.
It is essential that the surpluses are transferred BEFORE any other action
because the destination of the surplus could change what
has to happen next in identifying the required number of winners from among the
larger number of candidates. Specifically, the
surplus could reverse the order of the bottom two candidates and so change the
one who will be excluded at the next step in the
counting process (always assuming an exclusion is the next step).
It is a novel idea that giving effect to the contingency choices of the voters
in a way that ensures proportional representation
would be "unconstitutional".
James
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
