I have been against IRV's way of 'counting' ballots since the first time I
heard of such, long before IRV or EM were born.
So, if the ammunition I supplied has an effect I will be delighted, and
have nothing against others' similar efforts.
DWK
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:40:41 -0800 (PST) Chris Benham wrote:
Dave,
Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a
group of avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
unconstitutional?
Will have any complaint when in future they are trying to do the same
thing to some Condorcet method you like and IRV supporters help
them on grounds like it fails Later-no-Harm, Later-no-Help, and
probably mono-add-top?
Chris Benham
Dave Ketchum wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Perhaps this could get some useful muscle by adding such as:
9 B>A
Now we have 34 voting B>A. Enough that they can expect to win and may have
as strong a preference between these two as might happen anywhere.
C and D represent issues many feel strongly about - and can want to assert
to encourage action by B, the expected winner. If ONE voter had voted B>A
rather than D>B>A, IRV would have declared B the winner.
Note that Condorcet would have declared B the winner any time the B>A count
exceeded the A>B count (unless C or D got many more votes).
DWK
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:05:03 -0700 Kathy Dopp wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I agree with you -that is important too, but the attorneys and
> judge(s) have their own criteria for judging importance as compared to
> existing laws.
>
> Your example IMO does show unequal treatment of voters, so perhaps
> I'll include it as one of many ways to show how IRV unequally treats
> voters and see if the attorneys use it or not.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kathy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
