> From: Chris Benham > > Forest,> Given IRV's compliance with the > "representativeness criteria" > Mutual Dominant Third, Majority for> Solid > Coalitions, Condorcet Loser and? Plurality; why should the > bad look of its > "erratic behaviour"> be sufficient to condemn IRV in spite of these and other > > positive criterion compliances such as> Later-no-Harm and? Burial > Invulnerability?A picture is worth a thousand words. It shows the actual > behavior, including the extent of the pathology.> > "....in the best of all > possible worlds, namely normally > distributed voting populations in no more > > than two dimensional issue space."> > Why does that situation you refer to > qualify as "the best of all > possible worlds" ?> Three points determine a > plane, so we cannot expect a lower dimension than two. What nicer > distribution can you think of. than normal? But any distribution whose > density only depends on distance from the center of the distribution would > give exactly the same results for any Condorcet method, without making the > IRV results any nicer. Forest
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
