> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:39:02 -0500 > From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You have often cited Warren Smith as one of the experts who "peer > reviewed" your prior arguments. I don't always agree with Warren, but > I do on this point. To quote from one of his pages: > > "But the delayed and instant runoff systems happen to be > mathematically equivalent if the voters are consistent between rounds > and if there are ?3 candidates." > http://rangevoting.org/Peru06.html > > You disagree, claiming they are "nowhere even close to equivalent." > Nowhere! Should you be letting someone peer-review your papers who you > makes a statement you deem "provably false and very simply so?" I > don't know how you can continue to contradict yourself in this way. Greg, I'm a mathematician, so when I say "provably so" I mean mathematically. You don't need me to point out all the detailed ways that top-two runoff is different than IRV, just sit down and think about it. You have a brain. Use a paper and pencil to help figure out and list the differences if necessary. Obviously more voters are able to participate if they choose to, in a top-two runoff than in any final IRV round in any IRV election where there are more candidates than the number of possible ballot rankings. Thus in top two runoff there is more likely to be a majority candidate, chosen by more than 50% of voters as opposed to IRV where 100% of voters rarely participate in the final counting rounds when there are alot of candidates, or if the IRV winner is the same as the first-round winner, then the result is the same as plurality with no runoff or second chance at all. That's just one big difference between the methods. Instant runoff is far fairer to more voters and has lots of other advantages over IRV. Just sit and study the issue for a while. I don't know what "delayed runoff" is. Never heard of that. Kathy ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
