On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM, robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote: > >> I've answered that question on this list before and Abd ul also answered >> it. >> >> There are *many* good alternative voting methods that do solve the >> spoiler problem, are monotonic, and elect majority winners and are >> precinct summable. > > would this list include Condorcet?
Yes. Condorcet is precinct-summable in an n x n matrix where n is the number of candidates. > >> I don't know of any alternative voting methods as >> bad as IRV/STV (although there must be one somewhere), so I would >> probably support almost any alternative method that lacks the >> multitude of flaws that IRV/STV have. Abdul has convinced me that >> regular top-two runoffs are good too. > > i'm sure as hell not convinced. if that were the case in Burlington in > 2009, a candidate would be elected on Runoff Day that was less preferred by > the electorate than an identified specific candidate who was not included in > the runoff. Well, let's just say top-two runoff is precinct-summable, monotonic, virtually always finds majority winners, preserves voters' rights and otherwise lacks most of the major flaws of IRV/STV, but does not solve all the flaws of plurality that IRV/STV was incorrectly envisioned as solving. Kathy > > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote: >>> >>>> Nice to know someone has some common sense to scrap IRV voting. I >>>> found out that NYC tried IRV in the 1930s and scrapped it too. Also >>>> Burlington VT and Aspen CO have ongoing efforts to scrap it >>> >>> *some* people in Burlington VT. don't assume (until Town Meeting Day, >>> March >>> 2) that they speak for the electorate of the city. >>> >>> we'll see. >>> >>> Kathy, you *still* haven't responded to my question of 10 weeks ago. >>> ever >>> plan to? >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote: >>>> >>>>> 5. It always amazes me how irrationally the supporters of IRV/STV >>>>> support a nonmonotonic system that creates more problems than it >>>>> solves when there are clearly better alternatives available that >>>>> actually solve more problems than they create. >>>> >>>> so, Kathy, i am curious as to which of these better alternatives you >>>> promote? > > so you're answer is the traditional election with runoff between the top two > vote getters if there is no majority? > > why can't that runoff be Instantized? *must* people be required to return > to the polls at a later date to vote in the runoff? > > > -- > > r b-j [email protected] > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > > > > -- Kathy Dopp Town of Colonie, NY 12304 phone 518-952-4030 cell 518-505-0220 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
