[EM] IRV's "majority winner". What if we let the people choose?

[Brian Olson]

On May 17, 2004, at 4:54 AM, Ken Taylor wrote:

> Sorry, but this inspired my sleep deprived brain. Has anyone noticed 
> that
> many of the discussions on this list follow a familiar pattern? To wit:
>
> Anti-IRVer: Here is an example that proves that IRV does not select 
> the same
> answer as Condorcet, therefore it is highly inferior to Condorcet, 
> which
> *does* select the same answer as Condorcet!
> Pro-IRVer: No, you've got it wrong! We're not really sure, exactly, 
> *what*
> IRV picks, but we're darned sure that whatever it picks is better than
> Condorcet!
> Approvaler: Will you two stop bickering and see the light? Not only 
> does
> approval voting pick the exact correct answer in every situation, but 
> it
> also will do all your household chores for you, and it cures cancer!
>
> Just meant to be humorous. Hope I didn't offend :)

I got a chuckle out of it. I suppose I fit in something like the third 
category. (IRNR rulez! ;)

I really do find it odd that the Condorcet argument sometimes sounds 
circular, with Condorcet being in the definition of what a voting 
system ought to be.

I base my valuation of a voting system on Utilitarian Values. IMFO, the 
"best" voting system is the one that most likely makes the most people 
the happiest.

My best attempt at getting inside the head of an IRVer is that they 
prefer (and think other people operate similarly) each choice HUGE 
amounts greater than the next lesser choice. Thus their perfect system 
is one that allocates their whole vote to their favorite-at-the-time. 
(Never mind that IRV might miss the compromise choice and jump straight 
to what some opposing faction prefers.)

Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/