[EM] Re: IRV letter

[Eric Gorr]

At 6:16 PM +0930 4/26/04, Chris Benham wrote:
>As Eric Gorr wrote (Fri.Apr.23):
>
>>Examples have previously been given which demonstrates IRV 
>>inability to perform better then Plurality. In these cases, IRV has 
>>failed to select the Condorcet Winner while Plurality did select 
>>the Condorcet Winner.
>>
>So what?  It is well-known  (and obvious) that  IRV is FAR more
>likely to elect the Condorcet Winner than Plurality.  So if
>anyone mentions the CW in an informed honest discussion of  IRV
>vs. Plurality, it should be to chalk up a point for IRV .

Well, I supposed that I can also ask:

   So What?

That IRV can and will fail to select the Condorcet Winner in a 
significant number of elections, is again sufficient for me to oppose 
IRV. I simply do not want to take the risk that the most preferred 
candidate (as defined by the Condorcet Criterion) would not be 
selected.


-- 
== Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===