What Brams showed was that, contrary to the frequent claims of IRV promoters, IRV gives strategic incentive to truncate one's ranking.
It was some time ago when I read of that, and a few minutes ago I posted, probably mistakenly, that Brams showed that IRV fails Later-No-Harm.
Most likely, in Brams' example, someone truncated, causing a higher-ranked truncated candidate to beat a lower-ranked truncated candidate.
But, if IRV meets Later-No-Harm, that means little. IRV protects your favorite from your lower choices by eliminating your favorite before IRV lets you help your lower choices. IRV saves your favorite by eliminating him. A sort of electoral euthanasia.
If IRV's Later-No-Harm "advantage" is the kind of benefit that we get from Later-No-Harm, then it's questionable how important that criterion is.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
