[EM] James--IRV mitigation compromises
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue May 3 22:26:42 PDT 2005
Of course I wouldn't oppose IRV proposals that significantly mitigated IRV's
("Mitigated" is subjunctive, due to the counterfactual nature of the
I wouldn't oppose IRV with the candidate withdrawal option (CWO).
I wouldnt oppose IRV if it's ERIRV(whole)., because that's as good as
I'd even help advocate those proposals, though, as you suggested, I'd try to
replace them with wv at an earlier stage of the public proposal project.
I probably wouldn't try to replace them with Approval or CR, because I'd be
inclined to go along with the ambitiousness of the mitigated-IRV proponents.
As for ERIRV(fractional), I wasn't going to bring this up, but now I'm not
sure of my claim that ERIRV(fractional) meets WDSC. About a year ago I found
a demonstration that it does. I made that claim in postings. But I haven't
succeeded in demonstrating it more recently. Maybe I made an error in my
earlier demonstration that ERIRV(fractionial) meets WDSC. I now have neither
a proof that ERIRV(fractional) meets WDSC, nor an example in which it fails
WDSC. Anyone else is welcome to post either.
Of course if ERIRV(fractional) doesn't meet WDSC, then it isn't as good as I
said, and I take back my support for that method.
Until I know that ERIRV(fractional) meets WDSC, I'd oppose it, because, if
it doesn't even meet WDSC, it isn't significantly better than unmitigated
But you're right: If we could show the IRV promoters that they won't be able
to enact unmitigated IRV anymore, then they might become more accepting of
IRV mitigation compromises.
Shall we start?
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
More information about the Election-Methods