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

Eric Gorr eric at ericgorr.net
Fri Jan 23 15:00:28 PST 2004

At 4:43 PM -0600 1/23/04, Paul Kislanko wrote:
>For every example that meets such-and-such criterion there is a fairly easy
>way to come up with a counterexample that shows a failure to meet a
>different criterion, and what most people on this list do is switch criteria
>from a post to a reply to an objection to their post. For example, a poster
>suggests rather strongly that the lowest-ranked alternative on a ballot can
>be assumed to be the least-desired alternative, but three replies later the
>same poster can say that such a suggestion is untenable if we allow that all
>dis-approved alternatives may be treated equally.

Now, you're just making stuff up.

>In all of the replies to my post, the responders pointed out all the ways
>that the last-ranked alternatives should be given less regard than the
>first-ranked alternatives. Which was exactly what David Gamble originally
>said, and with which I agree.

Why do you believe that lower preferences do not matter?

>The poster who claimed that there was
>information to be gained from the last-ranked alternative on any specific
>ballot didn't support it in this thread, and even gave examples that would
>support the contrary.

Again, you're just making stuff up.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list