[EM] [Fwd: IRV in action.....Improved IRV] (slightly corrected)

James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Mon Apr 7 11:26:01 PDT 2003

Chris wrote (here changed to plain text)
> In response to a quite plausible, political spectrum-based 5 candidate
> example of  IRV performing poorly ,James Gilmour stated :
> "I recognise the problem very well, but what is the practical solution?
> I am very sympathetic to Condorcet, but there must be serious questions
> about the public acceptability of some of the results it is likely to
> produce."
> This has prompted me to unveil my idea for  Improved  IRV  (an
> IRV-Condorcet hybrid), which I think he might like.

It wasn't a question of what I might like.  It was what would be politically
acceptable to real voters, many of whom are sceptical about any proposals to
change voting systems and a significant number of whom are extremely hostile.

You example was OK (cut for space) but did not really address the issue I

Look at your first preferences:
10 FR
25  R
31  C
24  L
10 FL

I don't think I would have too much trouble selling C as an acceptable Condorcet
winner because C started with 31% of the votes.

The situation I was concerned about looks more like this (first preferences only,
rest as before):
10 FR
38  R
  3  C
39  L
10 FL

or even
48 R
 3 C
49 L

C is still the Condorcet winner, but in very different circumstances.
I know it makes sense, but that doesn't make it acceptable to the electorate at


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list