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

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:57 AM 12/26/2008, Juho Laatu wrote:
>One basic reason is of course that
>Condorcet methods are too tedious to
>hand count in large elections with
>many candidates. Obviously Condorcet
>is now better off due to the
>availability of computers.

There is a simple Condorcet method which only requires two counts, 
almost always, then some conditionally: First preference, then 
pairwise against that preference. If there is a pairwise defeat, then 
pairwise against that candidate. If no defeat, Condorcet winner 
prevails. If defeat, Condorcet cycle exists, count as necessary to 
identify members of Smith set, which may be as little as one 
additional round of counting. Winner could then be by first 
preference among the Smith set.