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

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Terry Bouricius,

you wrote (25 Nov 2008):

> 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.

Well, Pierce County and Ann Arbor were counterexamples
only when the IRV winners were identical to the Condorcet
winners in these examples. Because only then these
examples show that IRV chose the "right" winner and
plurality voting chose a "wrong" winner (according to
Greg's logic).

You wrote (25 Nov 2008):

> 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.

Greg demands real-life examples with complete ballot data
when someone wants to argue that IRV sometimes performs
worse than Condorcet voting. Therefore, it is only fair
when also Condorcet supporters demand real-life examples
with complete ballot data.

Markus Schulze