[EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.

[Paul Kislanko]

James wrote in response to

>Paul wrote:
>> That would only be the case when every voter ranks all
>> candidates, and every voter has been told that who they rank
>> last matters. No voter I know wants to go to that much
>> trouble.
>
>Meet one.
>When voting in STV-PR elections I have frequently marked preferences
against all 30 candidates
>standing for 15 places.  My 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are very positive choices.  My 6,
7, 8, 9 10 are also
>positive, but with less conviction.  Then I turn my attention to 30, 29,
28, 27, 26, 25 and put in
>there those I genuinely least want to see elected.  Then I go back to 11,
12, etc and make as
>positive choices as I can.  I'll be honest and say that filling 20 to 25
has on occasion been almost
>arbitrary, but I wanted them elected less than anyone above them and more
than any of those I'd put
>below them.
>Who said democracy had to be easy?

Given the same opportunity, I might do the same. But be honest and give your
best guess as to what percentage of the voting population would get beyond 5
while in the voting booth. My guess is not even all of the EM-list
subscribers would be as assiduous for an election that had 30 or 40
different races in the election, each of which has 3-10 alternatives. The
last time I went to vote by the time I got to the last question on the
ballot I was voting least-objectionable as first and didn't even care if
anybody else was running for the post.

As far as "Who said democracy had to be easy?" - democracy doesn't have to
be, but if VOTING isn't "easy" then all of you who are claiming to talk
about "democracy" aren't.