[EM] FYI: Tacoma park IRV vote data

[Kathy Dopp]

Ha ha. Good one Kris. Thanks for the laugh.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km-elmet at broadpark.no> wrote:
> Kathy Dopp wrote:
>
>> Notice how typically, Fair Vote claims that they found majority
>> winners by manipulating the definition of majority to mean only those
>> voters left standing by the final counting round.
>
> I wonder whether, if one were to make a "maximally wrong" IRV-type method
> that eliminated the candidate most people voted for until only two were left
> (and then picked the one who beat the other), FV would still claim the
> "winner" to have been elected by a majority.
>
> E.g
>
> 30: A > D > C > B
> 20: D > C > A > B
> 20: C > A > D > B
> 23: B > A > C > D
>
> Plurality counts: 30: A, 20: D, 20: C, 23: B
>
> Eliminate A.
>
> 50: D > C > B
> 20: C > D > B
> 23: B > C > D
>
> Plurality counts: 50: D, 20: C, 23: B.
>
> Eliminate D.
>
> 70: C > B
> 23: B > C
>
> C wins by 70/93 = 75.3% of the votes. What a landslide!
>
> (Schulze and MAM gives A > D > C > B, and IRV gives A > B > C = D.)
>
> -
>
> Less facetiously, if all elimination methods have this property, then so
> does BTR-IRV or Borda-elimination. Either of the two aforementioned methods
> may be better than IRV itself - I would say "would" but if I remember
> correctly, Warren claimed Nanson and Baldwin are extraordinarily easy to
> manipulate.
>