[EM] it's been pretty quiet around here...

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Aug 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>> the other method, BTR-IRV (which i had never thought of before  
>> before Jameson mentioned it and Kristofer first explained to me  
>> last May), is a Condorcet-compliant IRV method.  i wonder how well  
>> or poorly it would work if no CW exists.  i am intrigued by this  
>> method since it could still be sold to the IRV crowd (as an IRV  
>> method) and not suffer the manifold consequences that occur when  
>> IRV elects someone else than the CW.  does "BTR" stand for "bottom  
>> two runoff"?  and who first suggested this method?  is it published  
>> anywhere?  Jameson first mentioned it here, AFAIK.  the advantage  
>> of this method is that is really is no more complicated to explain  
>> than IRV, and it *does* resolve directly to a winner whether a CW  
>> exists or not.  i am curious in how, say with a Smith Set of 3,  
>> this method would differ from RP or Schulze.
>
> For Condorcet you have the N*N matrix and precinct summability but,  
> unlike IRV, you better do nothing that involves going back to look  
> at any ballots.

i guess you're right.  i was just intrigued about this variant of IRV  
that is Condorcet compliant.  but the actual method should be precinct  
summable so that leaves BTR-IRV out.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."