On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:56 PM, robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]
> wrote:
being 54 and having voted in every prez election since Carter-Ford
(and aware of the 1968 election with Wallace-Nixon-Humphery), i have
never once seen a presidential election in the US that had more than
two candidates with any chance of winning, and no more than three
candidates of national salience.
Nobody is talking about a US presidential election using IRV. Those
are state elections of electors. That is one election every 4 years.
There are how many single-winner elections in that period? 100,000?
so my bogus number is 3, maybe 4 at the most. individual precincts
could total 40 different virtual piles.
That is about the minimum, and even that could fail. A voting system
must handle the worst case. Proof of the pudding: no IRV election has
been handled through precinct summation.
doesn't matter what the counting method is, those precinct summable
pile tallies are sufficient to completely describe the election for
those 4.
Not if a majority is required. And not if one of the four is a write-
in category and the sum of write-in votes turns out to be more than
the votes for the last of the three ballot candidates.
for 3 candidates, that number is 9.
Okay, three candidates, A, B, C, the ballot possibilities are, to
be complete, much more than 9. I'll assume that write-ins are
illegal and void the ballot. Some of the possibilities are legally
equivalent to others, and in actual IRV ballot imaging, they are
collapsed and reported the same, to the displeasure of voting
security people who do want to know the "error rate," which
includes overvoting and exact overvoting patterns. So-called ballot
images are not, generally. They are processed data reducing a
ballot to legally equivalent votes. The reduced set is this:
A
B
C
A>B
A>C
B>A
B>C
C>A
C>B
Note that this assumes a 2-rank ballot.
no, it can be a 3-rank ballot where the voter declines to rate their
last choice. "3rd choice" is left unmarked.
I meant something a little different. I address the possibility of
a 3-rank ballot in the next section. The basic issue here is
whether or not the third rank is irrelevant or not. If it's
irrelevant, I claim, it's not really a three-rank ballot, it's got
two relevant ranks and one that means nothing. Why was it even there?
blather. you said absolutely nothing of substance.
I'll let the readers judge that.
It also assumes that majority vote isn't important.
bullshit. it (the number of consequential ballot permutations) has
nothing to do with it (whether or not majority vote is important).
This is, in fact, serious ignorance. Bullshit, properly used,
allows things to grow. Consider where the growth lies here.
If a majority is required, there is a difference in meaning between
B>C>A and B>C. I will assume the counting method described by
Robert's Rules of Order for preferential voting. 3 candidates
Situation with truncated B vote:
35 A>B
34 B>C
31 C
C eliminated, votes become
35 A>B
34 B
Majority basis is 100. 51 votes are required to win. No majority, B
eliminated. I would guess that Robert doesn't consider this step
because he is used to thinking of plurality IRV, no majority
required, and the counting can stop with the last two in that case.
A would win.
35 A>B. A is plurality winner, no majority, election fails. Who
would be the runoff candidates? Under Robert's Rules, the question
is unanswerable and undeterminable from the first round results.
It's a new election. Under top two runoff rules, the rules were not
designed for a preferential ballot, but I'd suggest considering
*every IRV vote* as an approval, then pick the top two in that.
so you're making up rules to "prove" a point. chapter 13, section
45 of RONR (regarding preferential voting) have *no* consequential
difference between marking the last preference last or deducing the
same preference is last because it is the *only* one remaining
unmarked.
You don't understand the rules. And you aren't paying attention to
what others have written here. RRONR elections as described continue
elimination until a majority is found. So it doesn't stop at the two
last. Majority, under the rules, is a majority of non-blank ballots.
So an A>B>C>D ballot is different from an A>B>C ballot. Let's look
there is no consequential difference between.
35 A>B
34 B>C
31 C
Majority is 51.
1. 35 A, 34 B
2. 35 A, majority failure, election must be repeated.
Richie and Bouricius have tried to cover this up with various
smokescreens but the manual is explicit, the election must be repeated.
and
35 A>B
34 B>C>A
31 C
1. 31 A, 34 B.
2. 69 A, A wins with a majority.
And so he or she should. Don't vote for a candidate unless you are
prepared to cause that candidate to win. The 3rd rank vote is not what
you thought. It is not a vote against A. It is a conditional vote for
A. It also harms the favorite, who might win a repeated election. So
majority-required IRV fails LNH.
FairVote has lied to you, and you still believe it.
I just read it again today. The propaganda claims that RRO recommends
IRV. But what they describe (and also criticise) requires a majority.
It is not a runoff substitute. As such, it's a better method, though
still defective.
or
35 A>B>C
34 B>C>A
31 C
end of discussion.
1. 35 A, 34 B
2. 69 A, A wins with majority.
This may not make sense to you because you don't realize how IRV would
actually be used. The ballots are blank pieces of paper. The voters
write the names of candidates in order, all those they wish to vote for.
Pay attention, Robert, there is far more here than you imagine.
the problem for you is that i *am* paying attention. you're wrong
and, by examination, that fact that you're wrong becomes manifest.
To whom?
Did you read the rules? Hint: I know them well and checked them
anyway. Most of what you'd need to know is on a FairVote page. The
inroduction is misleading, but the rules are there. Read the whole
thing. Every part is important.
the rest of the blather is deleted without comment.
No comment is better than stupid comment.
people need to warned that, although you fancy yourself an expert,
you are not. you make things up. they should just ignore you.
They don't. Think you can convince them? How well is that working here?
Am I an expert? Compared to what?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
