[EM] 02/01/02 - IRVing is superior in math, Steve Barney:

[Donald Davison]

02/01/02 - IRVing is superior in math:

Dear Steve Barney,

You are correct to say that IRVing is better than the Top Two Runoff
method, but we will never have a consensus about anything on this list, nor
should we have a consensus.

Consensus means group solidarity in sentiment and belief.
What a horror this list would be if all members had the same sentiment and
belief, say the same like MikeO or ThomasJ, but I digress.

You are also correct to say that both IRVing and Top Two Runoff are
mathematically identical for a three candidate election.

But IRVing is better in that it only needs one election.

IRVing is superior in math when the number of candidates are four or more.

Regards, Donald Davison



  ------------- Original Letter -------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:16:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Barney <barnes992001 at yahoo.com>
To: Election_Methods-list <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Subject: [EM] Consensus?: IRV vs. Primary w/Runoff

Do we have a consensus that the instant runoff vote (IRV) is MATHEMATICALLY
better than the common two step plurality vote (primary) with a follow-up
runoff between the 2 top plurality vote getters? It seems to me that it cannot
be worse, given that manipulation is bad. As far as I can see, the only
mathematically provable difference between them is that IRV is less
manipulatable. They share the same faults, including non-monotonicity. With 3
candidates, I believe they are mathematically identical.