Really, I’m done (for the time being) with the Burlington IRV failure thing.  In the end, to me it looks like this:

1. IRV is a better system than plurality voting (which, though I do feel this way, there’s a very decent argument on the contrary).

2. Regardless of any relative strengths or merit, IRV is prone to a number of flaws (errors in logic, i.e., mathematical errors and paradoxes) and most certainly a number of these were demonstrated during the 2009 election for Mayor of Burlington, VT.

3. IRV is the current law in Burlington and under the law (a legitimate and in no way “un-Constitutional” method of calculating election winners) Bob Kiss won, should have won, and is the winner.

4. Primarily because of the first statement, IRV should continue to be the system that Burlington chooses- unless and until…

5. There needs to be sufficient public eduction and exposure to practical social study’s and mathematics, among other things, in school so that the public at large can engage knowingly about important topics such as fair and equal democratic decision making processes.

6. Primarily because of #2 and #5 it would seem minimal to continue to strive in every facet of life to build a world in which every single person regardless of what their skin color or belief system or sexual identity or place of birth or place of residence or anything of the sort is free to live exploring the complete and full un-hindered creative magnificence of life as they so choose (so long as their choice doesn’t hinder upon the same to others, of course).

7. From #6, hence how or who we vote for is but a fraction of the political power that can and should be exerted by the general population.

8. All things the same- as I said at the top, I’m pretty done talking about IRV.  But, over on GMD a gentleman named Rama became- well, pretty repetitive in his B.S..  It kinda killed what could have been at least a small but interesting exploration of an important issue.  It’s obnoxious enough to try and have an intelligent conversation and see it run-over by such mental dribble; but then he decided to take it personal and posted his own attack, pretty much against me, pretty much summarized as “wdh3 is a liar, an idiot, and a lying idiot”.

Well, who fucking cares?

I don’t know if he cares, but Temple Univeristy mathematician Warren D. Smith at least has a response:

(Rama Schneider) argued, rather repetitively, that Kiss’s election was valid because he won according to the rules of the IRV system. Essentially, (Rama) would simply repeat the rules, then state “Kiss won.” If anyone pointed out a logical pathology present in the election, he would say that was a “what if” scenario, but the actual scenario was: Kiss won.

In some sense, Ramabahama is entirely right. (And we actually appreciate his argument rather more than most preceding ones since we think he was actually being honest about it, not trying to deceive!)

And if the election rules had instead been “we will kill a goat, and if the entrails end up pointing South, then Simpson wins” we daresay Ramabahama would have argued that this was a fully legitimate Simpson victory and repeated those rules. Any attempt by us to say that the election rules themselves were illogical would have been met (we presume) by simply claiming those were “what if” scenarios. The actual scenario was: the entrails pointed South, and those were the rules – so Simpson won!