>> From: Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [EM] IRV inconsistency
>> Here's an inconsistency of IRV that I wish somebody had
>> told me about before I submitted my article to the Green
>> Voice.
>> [...]
>> Why is IRV considered better than plurality when it fails
>> this consistency test and also fails monotonicity?
>> Is it only that it allows more ballot expressivity and
>> more or less eliminates spoilage by tiny parties?
I think the main reason is that it prevents what happened in
Florida last year. This is what people see, so this is what
they want a cure for. Examples like the one you brought up
don't necessarily bother people. The system for electing the
U.S. President is a plurality system, and yet a candidate can
get a plurality, or even a majority for that matter, and
still lose. And yet its defenders have crawled out of the
woodwork since the latest fiasco.
I have of late been entertaining a suspicion so shocking I'm
reluctant to mention it. It's beginning to look like public
opinion may not always be formed entirely on rational
grounds. Yes, really.
