Again Kathy, it depends how you define monotonicity.
With FPTP, you can easily let your third choice win by voting for your first
choice
while you could have got your second choice elected by voting for him.
But as you only want to consider monotonicity in regard to your first
choice, you argue that FPTP is monotonic, which is right using that
definition.
Stephane Rouillon
From: "Kathy Dopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending
non-Monotonicvoting methods & IRV/STV
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:29:59 -0700
> 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 false Greg since plurality voting in
both primary and general elections is very simply mathematically
provably monotonic.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
