FYI, I believe that this appeal by plaintiffs will prevail and I hope that will put an end to IRV/STV in the U.S. I haven't seen a copy of the actual Appeal document yet. I hope that the attorneys emphasized the unequal treatment of voters by IRV/STV methods and not just its nonmonotonicity.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy Cilek <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM Subject: FW: PRESS Release - IRV case appealed! To: [email protected] PRESS RELEASE January 27th, 2009 The Minnesota Voters Alliance appealed yesterday the Hennepin District Court decision upholding Minneapolis' Instant Runoff Voting election methodology as constitutional. The Alliance considers the appeal necessary considering, as a case of first impression, the undermining of constitutional principles delineated by the court. In one part of the decision for instance, the court found it an acceptable risk that a voter, in ranking candidates under an IRV election, can hurt his or her favorite candidate simply by ranking them as their first choice. This is indeed perverse. Andy Cilek, spokesperson for the Minnesota Voters Alliance said, "It is an unacceptable risk for the people that in their intent to help a candidate win, and to politically associate with that candidate, he or she can actually hurt that candidate's chance of winning by voting him first. No candidate is guaranteed a win, but no voter should be subjected to have another voters' second or third choice impair a voter's original intent." It is the contention of the Minnesota Voters Alliance to bring to the appellate court's attention what it finds questionable legal reasoning of the lower court. According to the Alliance, the court did not appreciate the development and current trends in the law applicable to protecting voters' rights. Mr. Cilek also stated, "Minneapolis citizens who voted for IRV in the City's referendum in 2006 did not have the right to violate the voting rights of the minority, and they may have been misled regarding the implications of IRV. In fact, they were never told of the negative impact upon an individual's right to vote. But, even if they wished to endorse a different way of voting in municipal elections, they certainly did not realize the City would write ordinances after the fact in conflict with the Minnesota and United States Constitutions." The Minnesota Voters Alliance expects the City of Minneapolis to file a motion for an expedited hearing. The motion would by-pass the Court of Appeals and have the appeal heard directly before the Minnesota Supreme Court. This could ensure a decision before the 2009 municipal election cycle begins. Mr. Cilek indicated the appellants would join that motion if filed. Minnesota Voters Alliance www.MNVoters.org For more info, contact Andy Cilek Andy Cilek – [email protected] -- 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://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Post-Election Vote Count Audit A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.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
