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

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Tue Nov 25 11:25:06 PST 2008


Dear Jonathan Lundell,

Greg Dennis 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.

I wrote (25 Nov 2008):

> 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?

You wrote (25 Nov 2008):

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

And when you apply Abd's claim to your conclusion (that
the statement "plurality voting always elects the right
winner" is false), what can you conclude about Greg's
claim?

Markus Schulze





More information about the Election-Methods mailing list