[EM] IRV at the Progress Report

Peter Maxwell peter.maxwell at anu.edu.au
Sun Jul 13 01:22:01 PDT 2003

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:57 am, Eric Gorr wrote:
> How would you respond to:
>    http://www.progress.org/2003/altman06.htm

Here's how I replied:  

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Flawed Counterargument For Instant Runoff Voting
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:35 pm
From: Peter Maxwell <pm67nz at optusnet.com.au>
To: TMA68 at aol.com


In reply to your article at http://www.progress.org/2003/altman06.htm:
> If the whole idea behind democratic elections is for the most-favored
> candidate to win, why should we be concerned if the least-favored
> candidate is eliminated?

If voters take strategy into account then there is a crucial difference
between "most-favored" and "most-voted-for".  If there wasn't then the whole
field of electoral method theory would be much simpler.

IRV sometimes rewards insincere voting.  I would like an electoral system
that lets me honestly rank my preferences, ignoring the polls, free from any
fear that I will regret the way I voted as soon as the results are
announced. That why I prefer Condorcet over IRV (and either of those over

> Is a voting system just only insofar as it serves the
> author's partisan bias?

I'm sorry but that line only proves that you misunderstand the author's
argument.  I suggest you replace the party names with 'A', 'B', and 'C' and
reread it - and the rest of the site!

 -- Peter Maxwell

(non-partisan geoist, citizen of a PR-using country and resident of an
IRV-using country).


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list