Hello,
Continuing my commentry on Kathy Dopp's anti-IRV paper, under
"Flaws of Instant Runoff Voting" we find:
"13.
voters may not be allowed to participate in the final selection round of an IRV
election
because all their choices were eliminated before the last counting round."
The only way voters may "not be allowed to participate in the final selection
round
of an IRV election" is if they are restricted from ranking as many candidates
as they
wish, a restriction that I strongly oppose (and doesn't exist in Australia).
Presumably Kathy thinks it is a bad thing that some voters aren't allowed to
participate
in the final IRV selection round, so we can logically infer that Kathy prefers
IRV with
unrestricted ranking to IRV with restricted ranking, right? Wrong. Further
down the
paper she writes:"Restricting the ranking depth of ranked choice ballots could
improve IRV methods
by reducing noise and making it easier for voters."
Kathy, your hero Abd ul Lomax disagrees! He recently wrote:
"If you are going to use a preferential ballot, with STV as the method,
allowing full ranking is important."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/message/8276
"STV" stands for 'Single Transferable Vote'. IRV is single-winner STV.
Chris BenhamNot all voters or ballots are treated equally: Unlike with actual
runoff elections, some IRV
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
