02/02/02 - Alexander, don't get stuck in a `Time Warp':

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Davison wrote in part, in his now classical form -

I am one who holds the belief that IRVing is the best possible method for
single seat elections, fear not, no one is going to eat you[r] first born.
----
D- Again the clueless folks who might have their first born eatten by H or S 
below ---- a really bad example of IRVing ---

H Hitler, S Stalin, W Washington

34 HWS
33 SWH
16 WSH
16 WHS
99

With IRV W loses. H beats S 50 to 49.  Civil War II ???

W is the Condorcet Winner.

If the first two choices are deemed desired/compromise (i.e. YES votes and/or 
Approval type votes), then

H 50
S 49
W 99 (merely deemed tolerable by ALL the voters).

How often will 2 extremists be the 2 highest choices with 3 choices remaining 
if IRV were to be used in real elections for a high office such as the chief 
executive officer of a nation ???

It only takes such an event one (repeat-- one) time before a *total* 
political disaster might happen (with perhaps the likes of Hitler or Stalin 
being elected with a false IRV majority).

There are at least 2 types of data ----  absolute (such as YES/NO, 100 to 0 
percent, etc.) or relative (1, 2, etc.)

IRV is totally defective since it only uses a small part of the total 
relative data.

Plurality is totally defective since it *really* only uses a small part of 
the total data.

Thus the various methods can be ranked depending on how much of the total 
available data is used in the method.

Condorcet
Approval
IRV
Plurality