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

[Markus Schulze]

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