[EM] Yet another IRV problem

[Bart Ingles]

Anthony Simmons wrote:
> 
> >> From: Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
> 
> >> Why is IRV considered better than plurality when it fails
> >> this consistency test and also fails monotonicity?
> 
> >> Is it only that it allows more ballot expressivity and
> >> more or less eliminates spoilage by tiny parties?
> 
> I think the main reason is that it prevents what happened in
> Florida last year.  This is what people see, so this is what
> they want a cure for.

What exactly does it prevent?  Do you mean the situation where Nader
"spoiled" a close election, which would otherwise have gone more
decisively to Gore?  Don't forget, it could easily have gone the other
way, in a different election (or the same election, in a different
state):

50%   Bush
45%   Gore
 5%   Nader, Gore

In other words, a decisive plurality election could have been turned
into a tie runoff.