Those documents make a good case. If you rule IRV/STV unconstitutional due to non-monotonicity, you have to be prepared to rule open primaries and top-two primaries unconstitutional as well.
Note also that other arguments by the "MN Voter's Alliance" would, if successful, would render *any* voting method that involves putting marks next to multiple candidates -- IRV, Bucklin, Approval, Condorcet, Range -- by its nature unconstitutional. They are also arguing that, because IRV satisfies Condorcet Loser and therefore requires the winner to show *some* majority over another candidate, that it could therefore lead to "tyranny" of the majority. They are specifically arguing against the whole idea of majority rule in a single-winner election. These people are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. The fact that you've made allies with them is telling. > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:23:39 -0700 > From: "Kathy Dopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonic > voting methods & IRV/STV > To: EM <[email protected]> > > FYI, > > Defendants in the MN Case (who are promoting IRV and STV methods) have > just released new affidavits to the court that discuss Arrow's theorem > as supporting the case for IRV/STV and dismissing the importance of > IRV's nonmonotonicity. > > I posted three of these most recent affidavits of the defendants of > Instant Runoff Voting and STV here: > > http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/ > > The first two docs listed are by Fair Vote's new expert witness. > > The third doc is by the Minneapolis, MN City attorney. > > The defendants characterize Arrow's theorem as proving that "there > exists no unequivocally satisfactory, or normatively appealing, voting > rule." and claim the "possibility of nonmonotonic results plagues ALL > potential democratic voting systems with 3 or more candidates unless a > dictatorial voting rule is adopted." > > I would appreciate it if any of you have time to read some of the > above three docs, particularly the third document by the attorney, and > give me your responses. > > FYI, the plaintiff's characterizes Arrow's theorem on p. 3 of this doc: > > http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/11SuplementaryReplyMemoinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment.pdf > > Thank you. > > Kathy > > > > -- > > Kathy Dopp > > The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author'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 > http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ > > 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
