Here is an "executive summary" kindly suggested by Jameson Quinn:
In his "response," Terrill Bouricius argues that the Burlington 2009
IRV result was probably superior to plurality, though, in fact, the
"plurality" method in prior use there required a 40% plurality and
would likely have produced the same result as IRV. However, when
faced with arguments that other systems could have given better
results, he largely dismisses these with irrelevant ad hominem
attacks combined with vague claims of flaws or the "unseriousness" of
these other methods.
the original draft of my commentary is at:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2010-January/025410.html
If the executive summary misses something important, or includes too
much, or is inaccurate, please let me know here or by private email.
As well, specific criticism of my commentary is welcome. It was a
first draft and very likely includes errors.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
