[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Dave Ketchum]

For a quick look at IRV: 35A, 33B>C, 32C

A wins for being liked a bit better than B - 35>33.

That C is liked better than A is too trivial for IRV to notice - 65>35.

Let one B>C voter change to C and C would win over A - 65>35.

Let a couple B>C voters switch to A and C would win over A - 63>37.

Point is that IRV counting often ignores parts of votes.

Dave Ketchum

On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Chris Benham wrote:

> "Vote your conscience
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEjXBI3mMpw
>
> Therefore IRV/STV is no better than plurality, but has extra very
> serious flaws, inequities, and vagaries that plurality does not have."
>
> Kathy Dopp (8 Jan 2010).
>
> I watched the video. It didn't provide any evidence that IRV is  
> actually
> a bad method, just that the claim made by some of its promoters
> that the voters are completely free of any compromise (aka favorite
> betrayal) incentive is wrong.
>
> I don't know of any "inequities" that IRV has that plurality  doesn't.
>
> I certainly consider plurality's failures of Clone-Winner and Majority
> for Solid Coalitions and Majority Loser to be much more "serious
> flaws"  than any IRV has.
>
> IRV is my favourite of the methods that are invulnerable to Burial
> strategy and meet Later-no-Harm.
>
>
> Chris Benham
>
>
>       
> __________________________________________________________________________________
> See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info