[EM] IRV inconsistency

[Forest Simmons]

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Markus Schulze wrote:

> Dear Richard,
> 
> you wrote (15 May 2001):
> > Markus wrote (15 May 2001):
> > > Richard wrote (14 May 2001):
> > > > Another consequence of the summability failure is that reporting IRV
> > > > results will be very complicated. At least for Condorcet you could
> > > > publish the overall pairwise matrix (and also the pairwise matrices for
> > > > individual counties or precincts or whatever the desired resolution is).
> > >
> > > I guess that IRV supporters will say that --for a voter to see what his
> > > vote did-- it is sufficient to publish the votes of each IRV step.
> >
> > It may be sufficient for some, but I would think at least a few voters
> > would demand more complete information about an election that will
> > determine many aspects of their lives for the next several years.
> > Exactly where do the numbers come from in each step? If there were
> > 100000 A votes in the first round, and A got eliminated, how many were
> > ABC votes and how many were ACB votes? This can be determined by the
> > difference between first and second round votes for B and C. But how
> > many of the B votes were BAC votes and how many of the C votes were
> > CAB votes?
> 
> However, also the pairwise matrix doesn't say how many BAC votes there are.
> You seem to believe that the voters want to know how many BAC votes there
> are only when IRV is used but not when a pairwise method is used.
> 
> Markus Schulze
> 
> 


The pairwise matrix would be sufficient for the critique of IRV as well.


Forest