On Reformers’ defending of not reforming STV and IRV

On Reformers’ defending of not reforming STV and IRV, by dismissing monotonicity

Monotonicity tends to be briefly dismissed by promoters the Alternative Vote, STV, and IRV. Here are arguments for the case that monotonicity is correct and it really does fail the Alternative Vote.

(1) It seems that for the 1 winner Alternative Vote, there is only one rule that would reshape IRV, and that is monotonicity. It is a 1 winner method so rules considering 2 candidates at one don’t say anything. It is not known to be corrupt. To reject the last and only rule that would fix IRV if reshaping it, is a plan to not reform the method.

(2) Monotonicity is about the only rule that causes the n-th preference to sacrifice the interests of the next. It is monotonicity that causes preferences to have a reducing importance along the list from the 1st to the last. Monotonicity not only fails the IRV method but it is the source of the political acceptable character of IRV. The IRV & STV voting methods are not to be defended by suggesting that monotonicity is dismissed

(3) IRV tends to assist any wrong candidates when there is a close race, e.g. between 3 candidates. The word ‘wrong’ is a comparison with a monotonic method.

(4) The advocate that wanted to dismiss the idea that monotonicity is important since it fails IRV or STV, could instead get a Real-valued measurement of the size of the failure.

(5) Censoring out a mentiong of monotonicity does occur.