[EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2

James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Mon Dec 22 01:47:24 PST 2008

In a post last night I wrote:
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 11:14 PM
> I am not going to comment of the rest of your interesting 
> post in detail, but I am surprised that anyone should take 
> Bucklin seriously.  I, and some of our intuitive electors, 
> would regard it as fundamentally flawed because a candidate 
> with an absolute majority of first preferences can be 
> defeated by another candidate.  Such a result may measure 
> some "compromise view" computed from the voters' preferences, 
> but it is not considered acceptable  -  at least, not here 
> for public elections. 

Chris Benham has kindly (and gently) pointed out my error, off-list.  My comments above relate to BORDA, not Bucklin.
My apologies to Abd and all for confusing the two systems and for any confusion my comments may have caused.

Bucklin would, of course, correctly identify the majority winner in the case described above.  But some of us take the view that
Bucklin falls "one person, one vote" unless all voters are (undesirably) compelled to mark preferences for all candidates -  but
that is a completely different issue, and I am aware there is more than one view on the meaning of "one person, one vote".


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1860 - Release Date: 21/12/2008 15:08

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list