[Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV?

[Chris Benham]

Forest Simmons wrote (Sun Jul 6 16:36:32 PDT 2008 ):

There is a lot of momentum behind IRV.  If we cannot stop it, are there some tweaks that would make it more liveable?
Someone has suggested that a candidate withdrawal option would go a long way towards ameliorating the damage.
Here's another suggestion, inspired by what we have learned from Australia's worst problems with their version of IRV:
Since IRV satisfies Later No Harm, why not complete the incompletely ranked ballots with the help of the rankings of the ballot's favorite candidate?
The unranked candidates would be ranked below the ranked candidates in the order of the ballot of the favorite.
If the candidates were allowed to specify their rankings after they got the partial results, this might be a valuable improvement.
Forest
Forest,
To me in principle voter's votes being commandeered by candidates isn't justified.
This particular horrible idea would create a strong incentive for the major power-brokers
to sponsor the nomination of a lot of fake candidates just to collect votes for one or other
of the major parties.

How do you think it "might be a valuable improvement"?  What scenario do you have in
mind? 
And what do you have in mind as  "Australia's worst problems with their version of IRV"?

Why do you want to "stop" IRV? Do you agree with Kathy Dopp  that  IRV is worse than 
FPP?
Chris Benham



      Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080707/83aeece5/attachment-0003.htm>