Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonicvoting methods
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Stéphane Rouillon Exactly, no electoral system can garantee coherence between the order of preferences of a voter and the impact the participation of that voter has on the result. Yea Right! The vote counting method that is employed cannot guarantee the coherence of the impact the participation of that voter has on the result. What alternate reality are we living in today? Kathy Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonicvoting methods
Stephane, You are confusing the spoiler effect with monotonicity. Plurality voting is ALWAYS monotonic. Neither IRV or plurality solve the spoiler problem. Both are susceptible to strategizing. I don't know any voting method that is not. Does anyone have anything helpful to add? Kathy On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Stéphane Rouillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonicvoting methods
On Nov 6, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote: Both are susceptible to strategizing. I don't know any voting method that is not. Random Dictator. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
