On Jul 8, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.7.2011, at 17.16, Andy Jennings wrote:
Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do
with it. For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed
sensible, too: instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs,
collect all the required information at once and then act as if
there were runoffs. That fails to account for the dynamics between
the rounds, but that's a subtle detail and might easily be missed.
I, too, must admit that IRV has a natural feeling to it. I had a
friend who described to me a system he thought of "on his own" and
he ended up describing IRV.
And MANY of us asking for Condorcet probably see it as fitting the
above description - for the voter.
It is when we notice that IRV counting can stray FAR from awarding to
the CW, that our attention can turn to Condorcet which:
. Has counting that awards to deserving candidates.
. Can easily handle equal ranking.
. Can learn to award to write-ins (when they are deserving).
Dave Ketchum
I agree with that (as one reason). It is a bit like natural
selection, or a like fight of strong men where the weakest ones must
leave the arena first.
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
