[EM] Re: IRV letter

[wclark at xoom.org]

Eric Gorr wrote:

> I don't consider the likelihood of the failure [to select the CW]
> to be relevant with respect to IRV.

Why not?  If IRV does a better job than Plurality of selecting the CW (a
point you don't seem to be refuting) then why shouldn't it be used instead
of Plurality?

Obviously (according to most people on this list, at least) Condorcet is
even better, and IRV pales in comparison there -- but if IRV is more
likely to select the CW than Plurality, and our choice is strictly between
IRV and Plurality, shouldn't we use IRV?  If not, why not?

I'd think you'd want to dispute the claim that IRV selects the CW more
often than Plurality does, not declare that fact irrelevant.  I'm
genuinely confused about your position, here.  Would you mind clarifying?

-Bill Clark

-- 
Protest the 2-Party Duopoly:
http://votenader.org/