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

[Terry Bouricius]

Markus,

That observation is incorrect, as there was a come-from behind winner in 
the November Pierce County IRV election, as well as in the famous Ann 
arbor mayoral election in the 70s. But also, your logic is odd...Quite 
often plurality rules will happen to elect a Condorcet-winner 
candidate...but that fact is not compelling since it also frequently 
elects the Condorcet-loser. I can point to MANY examples where plurality 
has failed to elect a "rightful" winner (often electing the 
Condorcet-loser). In none of the IRV elections has the Condorcet-loser 
been elected (and cannot be). The point is that IRV does NOT always elect 
the plurality leader.

Terry Bouricius

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Markus Schulze" <markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de>
To: <election-methods at electorama.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative


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


----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info