On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Top Two Runoff has an obvious problem, if the first round is simple
vote-for-one. Sometimes a compromise candidate fails to make it into the
runoff. This is really the same problem as IRV, but the problem doesn't
At 01:23 PM 11/6/2008, Kathy Dopp wrote:
The third doc is by the Minneapolis, MN City attorney.
11SuplementaryReplyMemoinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment.pdf
This document follows the same errors that Austen-Smith promoted, not
surprisingly.
It notes that plaintiff has asserted
At 01:23 PM 11/6/2008, Kathy Dopp wrote:
I posted three of these most recent affidavits of the defendants of
Instant Runoff Voting and STV here:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/
The first two docs listed are by Fair Vote's new expert witness.
I have been against IRV's way of 'counting' ballots since the first time I
heard of such, long before IRV or EM were born.
So, if the ammunition I supplied has an effect I will be delighted, and
have nothing against others' similar efforts.
DWK
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:40:41 -0800 (PST) Chris
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:56:16 -0800
From: Bob Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending
non-Monotonic voting methods IRV/STV
Part of Kathy's argument here appears to depend on treating the first
and second rounds as if they were
From: Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending
non-Monotonic voting methods IRV/STV
Abd seems to show that TTR cannot be reduced in such a mechanical manner,
You guys seem to forget the biggest difference btwn TTR or
primary/general and IRV
Greg wrote (Th.Nov.6):
Those documents make a good case. If you rule IRV/STV unconstitutional
due to non-monotonicity, you have to be prepared to rule open
primaries and top-two primaries unconstitutional as well.
Note also that other arguments by the MN Voter's Alliance would, if
successful,
Perhaps this could get some useful muscle by adding such as:
9 BA
Now we have 34 voting BA. Enough that they can expect to win and may have
as strong a preference between these two as might happen anywhere.
C and D represent issues many feel strongly about - and can want to assert
to
Dave,
Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a
group of avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
unconstitutional?
Will have any complaint when in future they are trying to do the same
thing to some Condorcet method you like and IRV supporters help
:23:39 -0700
From: Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonic
voting methods IRV/STV
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
FYI,
Defendants in the MN Case (who are promoting IRV and STV methods) have
just released new
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:51:31 -0500
From: Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those documents make a good case. If you rule IRV/STV unconstitutional
due to non-monotonicity, you have to be prepared to rule open
primaries and top-two primaries unconstitutional as well.
Your statement above is provably
Kathy,
Those documents make a good case. If you rule IRV/STV unconstitutional
due to non-monotonicity, you have to be prepared to rule open
primaries and top-two primaries unconstitutional as well.
Your statement above is provably false Greg since plurality voting in
both primary and
12 matches
Mail list logo
