Tim Hull wrote:
> Single-winner is tougher, but I think I'd use IRV or Plurality there > to avoid confusion concerning different single-winner and multi-winner > election systems. Plurality is terrible. I somewhat prefer IRV to Approval and Range. How many candidates normally or typically stand for the single-winner elections? IRV tends to behave worse with many candidates. > P.S. Here is why I don't like Condorcet - it allows weak or eccentric > centrists to win. > Consider the following example: a Republican, a Democrat, and a pro > wrestler are running for U.S. president > > Votes are as follows > > 48% - Democrat/Pro Wrestler/Republican > 5% - Pro Wrestler/Democrat/Republican > 47% - Republican/Pro Wrestler/Democrat > > The pro wrestler beats the Democrat, 52-48, and the Republican 53-47, > and thus wins. Under IRV, the Democrat would have won. If the Democrat and Republican supporters really have a strong preference for the wrestler over their least preferred candidate, what is the problem? If they don't, they have the option of preventing the wrestler from winning by truncating. But I agree that Later-no-Harm is nice. Chris Benham ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
