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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:

>
> I wrote (25 Nov 2008):
>
>> 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?
>
> You wrote (25 Nov 2008):
>
>> No, I don't.
>
> Which election method was used in Florida 2000?

Plurality failed in Florida 2000, so we can conclude that "plurality  
voting always elects the right winner" is false.

We can also agree that sometimes plurality does happen to elect the  
right winner.

You quote Abd as claiming that every US IRV winner has also been the  
plurality winner. This is apparently wrong, but never mind.

Greg claims that in practice, IRV does indeed elect the right winner.


 From this (if I've missed something, please correct me, but please  
also quote the above so I don't have to go digging it up again), you  
conclude that Greg is claiming that "plurality voting always elects  
the right winner".

I'm still looking for the chain of logic that leads you to that  
conclusion.