I choke when I see IRV called "fine" - it too easily ignores parts of
what the voters say. For example, look at what can happen with A
being much liked, yet IRV not always noticing:
20 A
20 B>A
22 C>A
Joe ?
Condorcet would see A elected by 62 votes (plus, perhaps, Joe's
63rd). IRV would be affected by Joe's vote:
. A - 63 votes with B and C discarded.
. B - 22 for C after 20A and 21B&20A discarded.
. C - 23 votes with A and B discarded.
DWK
On Apr 14, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I said:
"With an electorate that doesn't need FBC, and who are clear and
honest
with themselves about
what they consider to be acceptable--that's when and how FBC can be a
fine method.
"...because it is entirely defection-proof, and because it meets the
Mutual Majority Criterion."
Of couse, when I said "FBC" the 2nd time, near he end of that 1st
paragraph, I meant "IRV".
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
