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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:

> Dear Jonathan Lundell,
>
> Greg argued that "every IRV election for public
> office ever held in the United States ..."
>
> Now you use Florida 2000 as a counterexample.
>
> Do you see the problem?
>
> Markus Schulze

No, I don't. You wrote,

> Doesn't that mean that -- when we apply
> your logic -- plurality voting always elects the
> right winner?

How does a claim about IRV turn into a claim about plurality?

It seems to me that a plurality counterexample is indeed a legitimate  
argument against a universal claim about plurality--to the extent that  
that's the issue here.

If instead we're arguing about Greg's logic, I'm still not seeing how  
his claim about "every IRV election" implies anything about what  
plurality always does.