Correction: in my last message (partly quoted here), change the words
. . .!> "also wins V4B: V4 =" to . . . . "also wins this next election" --------------- >(5) By (4) and the axiom of Truncation Resistance, B wins V4: > >V4 = > (AB.) 34.33% > (BC.) 28.57% > (C..) 37.01% > >(6.1) By (5) and the axiom/corollary of Monotonicity, candidate B also !> wins V4B: !>V4 = > (AB.) 34.33% > (BC.) 32.57% [up 4%] > (C..) 33.01% [down 4%] > >(6.2) By (6.1) and the axiom of Truncation Resistance, candidate B also > wins V4B: > >V4B = > (AB.) 34.33% > (B..) 32.57% > (C..) 33.01% > >(7) By the axiom of the Right number of winners, candidate A loses > election V4B (and candidate C also loses election V4B). > --------------- Here 4% of the vote moves from (C) papers to (BC) papers. (Monotonicity leads to more wordy arguments, more complex algebra, and use of before-hand ruled-out papers). I am quitting the EM List (again; unless someone discovers something soon). Also Rob Richie sent in a message to the "instantrunoff" mailing list (of groups.yahoo.com) that identifies a new category of enemy (a category that contains "election officials", rather than say, all candidates and all of the public). -------------------------------- >Bottom-line: election officials at this point are unlikely to be your ally >-- and even worse, will be your enemy. If they won't get out of the way, we >may need to find ways to go around them even as we push to understand why >they are so resistant to a reform that on so many levels is simply "good >government." -------------------------------- I would be reluctant to draw conclusions since the plan was to harm just about every single person and then lose in the whole attempt is an insecure basis for a precepts on how to handle enemies. He ought not be categorizing anyway for that is not a use of reasoning, I suppose. A peek at IRV's 3 paper equation can have it failed for about 3 seconds. With REDLOG, some subroutine can fail it in less than a second. Still no good news on the numerical front. That For Loops program I wrote takes maybe 2-6 hours to get to a statisfactory conclusion that IRV is perfectly failed with numbers estimating the scandalousness of the defect. C.C. -- Notes on Preferential Voting: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
