> Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:53:47 -0700 > From: "Don & Cathy Hoffard" <[email protected]> > > Kathy Dopp Said: >>Let's hope that the Minnesota Supremes have more sense and more >>concern for the principles of the US constitution, than the IRV >>promoters at "Fair" Vote. > > IRV is, instant voting, and it is reasonable to assume that a voter could > not change their mind in an "instant".
Is it also "reasonable" to assume that all voters whose candidates are eliminated before the final counting round would chose not to vote in the final round in an "instant"? And is it also "reasonable" to assume that all voters whose first choice loses and whose second choice is never considered are OK with never having their second choice counted in an "instant"? And is it also "reasonable" to assume that all voters whose 2nd and 3rd choices are only considered after it is too late to help their 2nd and 3rd choices avoid elimination are OK with never having their 2nd or 3rd choices considered in a timely fashion? And ETC and on and on? Is it also "reasonable" when IRV elects a winner who the majority of voters oppose in an "instant"? Don, your conception of "equality" is surely different than my own. Kathy ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
