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

[Greg]

> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:16:34 -0500
> From: Brian Olson <bql at bolson.org>
> Subject: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative
>
> There's been a lot of discussion lately started by people who advocate
> IRV. I'm mystified. Really? You really think IRV is a good system?
> I've spent so long considering it to be pretty much junk that I really
> am confused by that position. Here's my summary of why I think IRV is
> junk.
>
> (from http://bolson.org/voting/irv/ )

I will believe that when I'm presented with a non-negligible number of
actual IRV elections for public office that failed to elect the
"right" winner. And for starters, you get to define what "right" is.
Preferably something of the form: in Election X, IRV elected candidate
Y but candidate Z was the right winner, because of [insert your
criteria and evidence here]. The more such cases you have, the more
convincing your argument. I've studied every IRV election for public
office ever held in the United States, most of which have their full
ranking data publicly available, and every single time IRV elected the
Condorcet winner, something I consider to be a good, though not
perfect, rule of thumb for determining the "right" winner. When you
present a case in which IRV did not elect the right winner, maybe I'll
agree or maybe I'll dispute your criteria, but at least then we'd be
off the blackboard and into the world of real elections.

Greg