<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and</div><div class=""><div class="">undesirable results including:<br class="">* defeat of the plurality candidate who got the most votes<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Defeat of one who got the most votes in the first count, but does not have a clear majority of voters behind them</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">* election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">no, that flaw is owned exclusively by standard voting. It is not possible for a candidate who is opposed by 51% of voters to win an election with STV</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">It can reach these undesired results because the math involved in the instant-runoff process </div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">is misunderstood by you ;-) </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">amplifies the impact of some votes while effectively nullifying others.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Any one vote which opposes any other vote effectively nullifys them. You made that case yourself in your "proofs" and then claimed the opposite.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I went through the math back in my early January posts if you want to see how that happens.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You made a lot of statements your own "math" doesn't justify, and you repeated lots of claims made by opponents of STV in California who have been proven wrong by more than a decade of data.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">STV is well-proven, peer-reviewed, and consistently produces the actual will of the voting populace time and again.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">-- <br class="">Jo Rhett<br class=""></div>
</div>
</div><br class=""></body></html>