[EM] just to let you know ...

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

>  ... because [Montroll] was a weak Condorcet
> compromise in third place in the initial tally. I suspect that if
> Burlington had used Condorcet rules and the candidate in third  
> place in
> the initial tally had been declared elected, there would be even more
> vociferous calls for repeal in favor of plurality or runoffs.

i meant to say, Terry, that this whole issue is *only* about if the  
Condorcet winner is in the third place.  we know that, when it boils  
down to three, the Condorcet candidate does not get second place in  
IRV, if the Condorcet candidate goes to the final IRV round, then he/ 
she wins IRV.  so then the two methods don't differ; we can't  
complain about the other one.

but my whole point is that even the "third place by plurality"  
Condorcet winner should be elected rather than the IRV winner.  for  
the reasons stated in my previous post.  and the "vociferous calls"  
for repeal of Condorcet would be against their enlightened self- 
interest.

but who said that mouth-frothing reactionaries who call themselves  
"One person, one vote" (i wonder how many bought into the "Death  
Panels" canard?) will act in their enlightened self-interest rather  
than their immediate partisan self-interest?  but, again Terry, i  
don't think that it's just Republican Wright supporters that are in  
the anti-IRV camp.  there are quite a few Dems there, too.  it might  
be dangerous to ignore the possibility that there are a number of  
Dems in that camp.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."