[EM] Real IRV Ranked Ballots

[wclark at xoom.org]

Eric Gorr wrote:

> If anyone has more realistic examples where IRV selects an extremely
> poor winner, I would be interested.

I doubt you'll find any that will convince dedicated IRV supporters.  It's
not that they're "brainwashed" but more that they simply have a different
set of things they value.

The clearest instance of this I've seen is the argument stemming from the
difference between "depth of support" and "breadth of support."  IRV
supporters argue that Condorcet completely ignores depth of support,
meaning that it makes no difference whether A beats B in virtue of
first-preference votes or second-, third-, fourth-, etc. preferences. 
They point out that Condorcet can even select a winner that NOBODY ranked
as their first preference.

Arguing that compromise or centrist candidates are preferable to those
supported by a small but fanatic minority is pointless -- because that's
precisely the type of value judgment that these IRV supporters are
rejecting.  Whether they're right or wrong in what they value is a
completely separate issue from the technical differences between IRV and
other systems.  Unless and until you address the value judgments
themselves, they'll continue to dismiss your technical examples as either
implausible or as examples where IRV *correctly* chooses somebody other
than the CW.

I think the only IRV supporters it makes sense to try to "convert" to
Condorcet (or any other system) are those that are simply unaware of
alternatives.  There are plenty of people like that to work with, and they
respond very well to friendly discussion.  You can try to flood the others
with example after example, but I don't think it'll be very effective.

-Bill Clark

--
Ralph Nader for US President in 2004
http://votenader.org/