[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Dave Ketchum]

Comparing these two is a waste of time.  EACH has demonstrated  
weaknesses that should have us working together on moving ahead.   
Where to go?

Condorcet lets voters vote much as they are promised for IRV.  It lets  
voters vote for those they most like, ranking their votes to show  
which they most desire - write-ins and equal ranking for two or more  
candidates are permitted.  The counting shows for each pair of  
candidates which is more liked by the voters, and uses this in  
deciding on the winner - the counting matrix can also help humans  
compare strength of candidates.  Often there is a CW that wins in  
everyone of its pairs; else the cycle of those most liked is analyzed  
to choose a winner.

Range/score also permits voting for multiple candidates.  Its ratings  
permit varying strength of approval among rated candidates - both more  
power and more complexity than Condorcet.

Bucklin is another ranking method - perhaps a bit more complex than  
Condorcet.

Other methods are possible - takes analysis to look for the best.

Dave Ketchum

On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Stéphane Rouillon wrote:

> > Therefore IRV/STV is no better than plurality, but has extra very
> > serious flaws, inequities, and vagaries that plurality does not  
> have.
>
> I definitively disagree. Plurality is worst than IRV.
> The flaws that IRV does have are real.
> But these problems appear very less often than the splitting-vote  
> issue of FPTP.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100108/cab79612/attachment-0003.htm>