dunno if i can do much critiquing of that particular doc. what i like is in FairVote's page:
http://www.fairvote.org/single-winner-voting-method-comparison-chart where they claim that IRV will do a better job getting the Condorcet winner than does Condorcet (sometimes the Condorcet method will *fail* to elect the Condorcet winner for those who didn't know that): "IRV will generally elect a Condorcet winner, ... IRV may actually do a better job of electing Condorcet winners that nominal Condorcet voting methods, because of the incentives for strategic voting under Condorcet rules that are absent under IRV. ... Condorcet voting is designed specifically to find and elect a Condorcet winner whenever such a candidate exists. Ironically, due to incentives for strategic voting inherent in Condorcet methods, they may in fact fail to elect the Condorcet winner, even when one exists." i know, so up is down, black is white, etc. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -----Original Message----- From: "Jameson Quinn" [jameson.qu...@gmail.com] Date: 10/10/2011 18:26 To: "electionsciencefoundation" <electionscie...@googlegroups.com>, "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> Subject: [EM] Critique of FairVote's "approval voting" report I would like to make a detailed critique of the FairVote report theyve put up at approvalvoting.blogspot.com and rangevoting.com. I believe that every single one of the conclusions of that report is dangerously wrong. Ive created a google doc to help make this critique collaboratively. Please add comments to the doc to help critique. Thanks, Jameson ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
