At 01:23 PM 11/6/2008, Kathy Dopp wrote:
The third doc is by the Minneapolis, MN City attorney.
11SuplementaryReplyMemoinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment.pdf
This document follows the same errors that Austen-Smith promoted, not
surprisingly.
It notes that plaintiff has asserted monotonicity failure as a
problem of IRV. I'll note, right away, that, unless this is tightly
correlated with the language of Brown v. Smallwood, this may have
been poor legal strategy.
As you may know, I think that Brown v. Smallwood is ripe for
reversal, and that public policy would indicate that we should
support total reversal, and not what defendants have been seeking,
which is partial reversal, or specification of the BvS result to
other than sequential elimination methods which satisfy Later-no-Harm
and which only consider, at most, one vote at a time, during the
process. (This would clearly be a reversal of the original thinking
in Brown v. Smallwood; FairVote has been arguing from dicta that can
be read as referring to Later-no-Harm, but there is other language in
BvS that very clearly proscribes all forms of alternative vote.)
As distinct from Bucklin Voting -- or many other possible reforms,
such as Approval, Range Voting, or Concorcet methods, which still, in
the end, only *apply* one vote from each voter, but which may
consider all of them in the process. A result as desired by the
defendants would damage election method reform in Minnesota for many
years to come, I'd expect; the only silver lining is that Brown v.
Smallwood has no application outside of Minnesota and was,
essentially, a rogue decision, out of step with other states.
Brown v. Smallwood clearly stood for the principle of one person, one
vote, totally and completely, as to any single election. It did not
allow any "alternative" votes. IRV flies directly in the face of BvS,
and FairVote propaganda, prior to the challenge, simply dismissed
this, encouraging Minneapolis, for example, to disregard the advice
of its own attorney (in advice given prior to the adoption).
There is a possibility that monotonicity failure can be connected to
the specific arguments given in Brown v. Smallwood by the court
majority. I'd have to study that in particular, but I consider it
only a thin possibility.
As to immediate practical result, I'm with FairVote. IRV should be
allowed in Minneapolis, providing only that it was properly adopted
(BvS aside). Brown v. Smallwood should be tossed, and, once again,
Bucklin voting, which is far, far simpler to count than IRV, and
which has superior performance to IRV (slightly), should be on the table.
Note that a finding for the plaintiffs in this will, in my opinion,
damage future voting reform in Minnesota. I very much dislike IRV, in
comparison to top-two runoff, a vastly superior method, which it is
replacing. (If that is what Minneapolis had, I haven't checked, but
this is what has been replaced in every other election held, I think,
since San Francisco started up a few years ago.).
My concern is that FairVote will prevail on their arguments such that
sequential elimination preferential voting will be considered legal,
but not any other form of preferential voting, thus giving us
Later-no-harm, a minor and quite controversial "benefit," instead of
such basics as Condorcet compliance (which, if you are going to use
pure preferential ballots, is truly fundamental, and we only go
beyond Condorcet compliance when we consider preference strength,
where, in the end, the Condorcet criterion turns out to be shallow,
making sense only when preferences are strict and equal.)
The attorney attacks Ms. Dopps' competency as an expert witness.
That's probably cogent; that is, it seems reasonably likely to
prevail. The matters at issue here are constitutional ones and, as
the city attorney notes, such problems as cost or election security
are irrelevant.
I write a lot, and, believe me, were I writing for an affidavit to
file with a court, you'd see far less text. What I might think about
contributing, if there is time, is an analysis of Brown v. Smallwood
and why it was defective, as well as the deficiency of FairVote
arguments attempting to discriminate between Bucklin voting (then
called "preferential voting," same name as IRV was known as) and IRV
based on sequential elimination.
This would be an argument for the defense, though.
But credentials, I have none. I think the monotonicity issue, though,
is a huge red herring. Monotonicity failure by IRV is a *symptom*
that shows erratic behavior, not of great practical consequence,
because the circumstances where it would affect the result seem to be
rare; there are much more serious problems, specifically Center
Squeeze. But Plurality, of course, exhibits Center Squeeze.
IRV is really a fancy, expensive, form of Plurality, unfortunately,
once we start to look at how it actually works in real nonpartisan elections.
There is an interesting method being used, now, in some states, which
FairVote is calling IRV, though it is really a form of Contingent
Vote. It's not IRV at all, except that a contingent vote is cast by
absentee voters, to be used in a runoff election, if it is held. That
is a *separate* election, it has a different actual voting
electorate, with a separate campaign.
I think it may be unconstitutional, on totally different grounds than
are at issue in Minnesota, if it deprives absentee voters of the
right to later change their votes, as afforded to all other voters.
(However, if the process allows voters to specify whether or not they
were voting in the runoff or not, presumably on the enclosure
envelope, if they can keep the absentee runoff ballot and send it in
separately, then it would merely be a form of early voting in a
contingent election, affording them a right without a cost. I have
not read the details.)
What if this right, to cast a contingent ballot, or, alternatively,
to vote later, were afforded to all voters? That might look like IRV,
but it would actually be quite different. You would still see those
"comeback elections," which have been eliminated by IRV.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
