[EM] Does IRV elect "majority winners?"

[Markus Schulze]

Hallo,

usually, the term "majority winner" refers to
a candidate who is strictly preferred to every
other candidate by a majority of the voters.

However, IRV supporters usually use the term
"majority winner" for a candidate A who can
win a majority (or at least half of the votes)
in a runoff between candidate A and some other
candidates.

Question: Who can win a majority (or at least
half of the votes) in a runoff between himself
and some other candidates? Answer: Everybody
but a Condorcet loser.

So when IRV supporters say that IRV "always
elects a majority winner" then this is
EXACTLY the same as saying that IRV "never
elects a Condorcet loser".

Question: So why don't IRV supporters just
say that IRV "never elects a Condorcet loser"?
Answer: IRV supporters don't want IRV to
be judged by its properties but by its own
underlying heuristic. We all know that every
election method is the best possible election
method when judged by its own underlying
heuristic. If IRV supporters just said that
IRV "never elects a Condorcet loser", then
this argument could also be used by the
supporters of other election methods that
satisfy the Condorcet loser criterion.

Markus Schulze