[EM] Is IRV just a costly version of Candidate Proxy?

[James Green-Armytage]

Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> writes:
>If everybody parroted candidate cards, then IRV would be equivalent to
>Candidate Proxy, in which the voters just vote for one candidate and let
>the candidate act as their proxy for the vote transfers.

	I think not quite. As I understand candidate proxy, there is usually a
space of time after the actual public vote, where candidates can decide
whom they are going to cast their proxy votes for. This space of time is
crucially important, because it allows candidates to coordinate their
intentions, to try to avoid a "mistake" from happening. That is, in IRV,
you know, you could end up with something like the 35-32-33 example, where
the Condorcet-winning-middle gets eliminated first. Candidate cards
wouldn't necessarily be able to dodge this bullet the same way that
candidate proxy could. Does that make sense?

James