[EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative KD

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Tue Dec 16 05:49:08 PST 2008

Hi Kathy,

You are responding to me, not Abd ul-Rahman Lomax.

--- En date de : Mar 16.12.08, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > --- En date de?: Dim 14.12.08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> <abd at lomaxdesign.com> a ?crit?:
> >> > >> That's not very generous. I can
> think of
> >> a couple of defenses. One would
> >> > >> be to point out that it is
> necessitated by
> >> the other criteria that IRV
> >> > >> satisfies. All things being equal, I
> consider
> >> LNHarm more desirable than
> >> > >> monotonicity, for instance.
> Abd ul,
> That is about the strangest position I've seen you take
> on any subject
> because it is equivalent to saying that it is more
> important for a
> voting method not to hurt my lower choice candidates than
> my first
> choice candidates.

The reason I believe LNHarm is more valuable than monotonicity is that
when a method fails LNHarm, the voter is more likely to realize in
what insincere way to vote differently, in order to compensate. When
a method fails monotonicity, a voter will rarely know to do anything
differently because of it. Thus, *all things being equal* (which must
be kept in mind if it's IRV that is on your mind), I would expect that
failing LNHarm will provoke more insincerity (and thus destroy more 
information) than failing monotonicity.

IRV has other issues that can lead to a different conclusion, but that
isn't what I was discussing.

Kevin Venzke


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list