[EM] Voting Systems Study of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota

James Green-Armytage jarmyta at antioch-college.edu
Mon Oct 11 03:57:09 PDT 2004

>they don't explicitly write that they recommend IRV, but
>the study is written in such a manner that a naive reader
>will necessarily get to the conclusion that IRV was the
>best method.

	I agree with Markus's assertion that the LWV analysis is poorly done, and
poorly done in a way which usually favors IRV. I agree with many of
Markus's criticisms, especially their slipshod analysis of vulnerability
to strategy. Just in case anyone is interested, they do say one nice thing
about Condorcet, that is:

"even champions of other systems acknowledge that such a Condorcet winner
is more truly representative of the will of the majority and
therefore more 'democratic.' "

	But on the whole, yes, they tread too softly on IRV. One other thing I
noticed is that their research is a bit erratic. They cite several,
several pages on the fairvote site, and quite a few pages on Mike
Ossipoff's site, but they didn't seem to read any of the other sites which
talk about Condorcet's method... and there are quite a few good ones. 
	By the way, I also think that they take the Borda count too seriously...


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list