2010/1/10 Stéphane Rouillon <[email protected]>: > Abd Ul, > > from the data you produce, I agree that for the Burlington election, IRV did > produce the same result > FPTP would have produced.
No it did not. FPTP would have produced different voting behavior and elected the Condorcet winner because voters were fooled into thinking that IRV allowed them to vote sincerely. A Republican has not won for Mayor in Burlington for over a decade. Most of the people who preferred the Republican first would have voted for the Democrat and only a few hundred of those needed to do so for the Democrat to win. Plurality is far better than IRV for many many reasons including: 1. preserves the right to cast a vote that always positively affects the chances of winning of the candidate one votes for 2. allows all voters the right to participate in the final counting round in the case of top two runoff or primary/general elections 3. preserves voters' right to understandably verify the election outcomes because the counting is simple enough for them to do, precinct summable 4. preserves the right for local precinct control of the counts or in the case of election contests that cross county lines, local county control of the counting process 5. is far less costly than the IRV counting process 6. fails fewer of Arrow's fairness criteria than IRV/STV does ETC. -- Kathy Dopp Town of Colonie, NY 12304 phone 518-952-4030 cell 518-505-0220 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
