[EM] Participation and IRV

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Eric--

Say John & Mary decide to sit out an IRV election.  The votes are as 
follows:

110: ABC
100: BAC
99: CBA

C gets eliminated and transfers to B. B now has a "majority", as defined in 
IRV, and wins.

But what if John & Mary, at the last minute, decided that it's important 
that they do their part to keep their last choice, A, from winning, and so 
they show up and vote sincerely, CBA.

This time B is the first candidate eliminated, and transfers to A, and A 
wins. But if the B voters didn't list A as their next choice, and so B 
didn't transfer to A, A would still win, when C is eliminated. That would be 
true even if the C voters, likewise, didn't rank A.

I recommend that you use this example when writng letters to the editor, or 
ballot arguments against IRV. Though Condorcet also fails Participation, CR 
doesn't. So the best public voting reform proposal, CR, passes 
Participation. Participation is a meaningful comparison between IRV and CR, 
and should be mentioned when IRV is proposed.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/