[EM] [Election-Methods] My Short Anti-IRV Screed

[Juho]

This page sums up argumentation against IRV quite nicely.

One observation. The "IRV Doesn't Scale Up" could also cover the  
synchronized style counting. I mean the scenario where the ballots  
are kept in various small counting centres but where only the  
counting process is coordinated from some central site, e.g. giving  
instructions to all local sites during the counting process on when  
some candidate should be eliminated. I guess this approach would be a  
typical response of the IRV promoters to these central counting  
related problems.

Anther detail. In the last paragraph: blanks in a rankings ballot  
could mean also "below all others". In many cases this is a good  
approach to avoid unknown candidates getting "too good results".

You mentioned that IRV is better than plurality. It has also some  
other good sides like reasonably good strategy resistance. But maybe  
this page need not cover this kind of "IRV promoting stuff" if the  
main focus is anyway to collect rational argumentation that points  
out the weaknesses of IRV that the IRV promotion campaigns so easily  
miss.

Juho



On Aug 6, 2008, at 8:49 , Brian Olson wrote:

> Hopefully this can be a resource in the battle against mediocre  
> election methods.
>
> http://bolson.org/voting/irv/
>
>
> The short short version is:
> IRV gets worse results on average in simulation
> IRV has chaotic nonlinearities and can pick the wrong answer
> IRV doesn't scale up
> pro-IRV FUD is lies
>
>
> On the other hand, maybe I've spent too much time in my own little  
> world and this doesn't make sense to anyone else. Feedback, anyone?
>
>
> Brian Olson
> http://bolson.org/
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html