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

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Paul Kislanko wrote:
> Just for clarity, can we agree that 
> ">In Bucklin, after the first round, there is no majority."
> 
> is a non-sequitor? There aren't "rounds" in Bucklin. All counts for all
> (#voters ranking alternative x >= rank n" are known simultaneously. 

Round may have been the wrong word, then. Call it "iteration" or 
"stage". A simple Condorcet method where one finds a winner by some 
method, then checks if it's beaten pairwise by another, then another, 
and so on, would also have iterations or stages (which candidate it's 
checking) even though those would not be separate elections.