Mr Bolson,
this represents very well my comprehension.
IRV is better than FPTP and it is almost all about it. The more choices
there is,
the greater the difference gets.
Since the transfer of information from counted ballots can be done in
proportion of n!
datas (where n is the number of candidate), IRV becomes not summable when
there is more
than 5 candidates (6! = 720 piles of ballots) for hand counting and around
10 candidates
(10! = 3 628 800 datas) for computerized counting.
For ordering methods, any Condorcet method (ranked pair) seems more
appropriate.
However, median voting (a rating method) tends to be my favorite
single-winner method.
In median voting, any candidate scores the median of all the ratings
received from the electors.
The highest median wins. Not getting rated on a ballot means the
correspondant voter has no opinion about the particular candidate.
It is by far the most strategy resistive single-winner method. And any
electoral system designer
will tell you we need to get sincere preference from the start if we want to
be able to get the electorate will.
Can you get equivalent statistics to compare median voting with your other
methods?
Yours,
Stéphane Rouillon
From: Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Election Methods Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Election-Methods] My Short Anti-IRV Screed
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:49:14 -0400
Hopefully this can be a resource in the battle against mediocre election
methods.
http://bolson.org/voting/irv/
The short short version is:
IRV gets worse results on average in simulation
IRV has chaotic nonlinearities and can pick the wrong answer
IRV doesn't scale up
pro-IRV FUD is lies
On the other hand, maybe I've spent too much time in my own little world
and this doesn't make sense to anyone else. Feedback, anyone?
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
