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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:

> Dear Greg,
>
> you wrote (25 Nov 2008):
>
>> 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.
>
> If I remember correctly, Abd wrote that, in every
> IRV election for public office ever held in the
> USA, the IRV winner was identical to the plurality
> winner. Doesn't that mean that -- when we apply
> your logic -- plurality voting always elects the
> right winner?
>
> Markus Schulze

Could you please spell out that logic? I'm not seeing how a claim that  
IRV elects the right winner implies that plurality elects the right  
winner. I'm thinking of Florida 2000, with the usual assumptions about  
Nader voters, as a counterexample.

Seems to me you're arguing from the converse.