Now,this is a whole different topic than Approval vs ordinary IRV.
If there were only 2 choices, Approval & ERIRV, I'd prefer ERIRV(whole) to Approval.
Probably ERIRV(fractional) too.
They both meet WDSC. With AERLO they meet SDSC.
So pretty much all Approval has over them is FBC. In return for that, they give ICC & MMC, but without the accompanying WDSC failure. And, as I said, with AERLO they meet SDSC.
Condorcet hasn't had a public acceptance terst yet, and so we can't know if people will reject it as James described. Note the very favorable evaluation that pairwise-count received in _Scientific American_ a few months. So it's certainly too soon to settle for something less than Condorcet wv.
But I'd rather have ERIRV than margins Condorcet, because margiins Condorcet doesn't even meet WDSC. Likewise most pairwise-count versions other than wv Condorcet.
I've posted this before, but here's my brief ranking of some methods. Methods not ranked aren't necessarily worse than those ranked. This ranking only compares methods that are in the ranking.
1. Condorcet wv (preferably with AERLO or AERLO & ATLO) 2. Bucklin (preferably with AERLO) 3. ERIRV(whole) (preferably with AERLO) 4. ERIRV(fractional) (preferably with AERLO) 5. MCA 6. Approval 7. ordinary IRV, as proposed by CVD 8. Plurality.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
