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

[James Gilmour]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:39 PM
> The general legal opinion seems to be that it doesn't fail that 
> principle. It *looks* like the person has more than one vote, but, 
> when the smoke clears, you will see that only one of these votes was 
> actually effective. The voter has contributed no more than one vote 
> to the total that allowed the candidate to win. Consider the election 
> as a series of pairwise elections.

An appeal to effective" votes is sophistry.  Bucklin is not a series of pair-wise elections and more than one of your votes is being
counted when there is no first preference winner but only one of mine.


> In a ranked method, generally, such as STV, the voter may possibly 
> vote in all pair-wise elections, except that with STV some of these 
> votes aren't counted. 

STV is not a series of pair-wise elections.  In STV the voter indicates contingency choices.  These contingency choices (successive
later preferences) are considered only in the contingency that the voter's ONE vote has to be transferred.


> With a Condorcet method, the votes all count. 

Yes, all the marked preferences will allow the voter's one vote to be used in as many pair-wise comparisons as the voter wishes to
participate in.


> Think of it as IRV with a different method of deciding whom to 
> eliminate.

I have heard this suggested for IRV (and STV-PR), but such a method of deciding the next elimination would not comply with
Later-No-Harm.

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1863 - Release Date: 24/12/2008 11:49