Because STV is merely a revised IRV method, STV has all the same flaws of IRV, plus some.
Here is a copy of the Plaintiffs Appeal doc that was submitted earlier this week: http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/MNcase/PlaintiffsStatementofCaseCrt-ofAppeals.pdf I might have made a stronger point about IRV/STV's unequal treatment of ballots/voters (counting some voters' second choices, not counting others' even when their candidate loses, the untimely way that some voters' second choices are counted, same problems for all 3rd,... choices - In IRV/STV the only fair round is the first one) than they did, but I think they did a pretty good job and have an excellent chance that the MN Supreme Court will declare IRV/STV to be unconstitutional on the three legal grounds they mention. Cheers, -- 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
