[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Terry Bouricius]

Kathy,

You need to learn the terminology for election experts to understand you. 
You can't use the term "majority-favorite" to when you mean 
"Condorcet-winner." They mean different things, and your statements below 
are confusing (and false), simply because you are using terms incorrectly.

For the record, I am indeed a supporter of Condorcet methods, and would 
support their adoption. However, I think IRV is sufficiently superior to 
plurality voting to also deserve active support...And ultimately I think 
IRV is more achievable for public elections than Condorcet methods, simply 
because Americans are familiar with and accepting of traditional runoff 
systems (TTR), which suffer all of the same non-monotonicity, and other 
shortcomings as IRV that Kathy focuses on.

Terry Bouricius

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
To: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj at audioimagination.com>
Cc: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs Plurality


On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>

I'm glad to hear you don't support IRV/STV methods.

>> There are several scenarios where voters' marked 2nd choices are never
>> counted, even when their first choice loses,
>
> if their 1st choice loses at some time before the final round, their 2nd
> choice is promoted to 1st choice and is not removed until after *it* 
> loses.
> but for it to lose, it is counted and, by the dumb IRV rules, is 
> considered
> to come up short.

No. As Abd ul pointed out your claim is true only when the voter's 2nd
choice has not already been eliminated as happens *very* frequently in
IRV when a majority-favorite candidate is eliminated before the final
counting round or when any voters' 2nd choice candidates are
eliminated prior to his first choice being eliminated.

This is the main reason why the IRV/STV counting method is so
fundamentally unfair - because it does not treat all voters' ballots
equally.

It seems funny to me that you call candidates "it".

>
> do you mean their 2nd choice is not counted because their first choice 
> loses
> in the final round?

Yes, that too is a major reason why a majority of voters may prefer a
candidate who is eliminated early on in IRV/STV methods.

> that goes without saying, but that's the dumb IRV
> rules. that is an *arbitrary* threshold imposed upon IRV, that 1st 
> choices
> count and *anything* below the 1st choice makes *no* difference until it
> gets bumped off and every other choice gets bumped up.
>
>> and this is what makes
>> IRV/STV such a fundamentally unfair system that tends to elect extreme
>> right or left candidates while eliminating the majority favored
>> candidates.
>
> it tends to elect the candidate from the larger subgroup (in Burlington,
> Prog vs. Dem) of the larger group (left vs. right).

Yes. I agree. If there had been more extreme rightists, the rightist
candidate would have won over the majority-favorite centrist Democrat
in Burlington and the Progressive candidate would have been the
spoiler instead of the Republican candidate.

> if the fringes were
> smaller than the center, it would elect the center candidate. but, at 
> least

The majority of voters favored the centrist candidate who was
eliminated, typical IRV/STV style.

I think you are referring to first choice votes only.

> if you use the mayoral vote as a measure, in Burlington Vermont, there 
> are
> more Progs than Dems.

Again, you are considering first choice votes only, which would have
been far different if voters in Burlington had not been falsely misled
by Fair Vote propaganda into thinking that it was safe for them to
"vote their conscience" or "vote sincerely" which is certainly a
recipe for a majority of voters to get their least desired outcome in
IRV/STV methods.

>
> but the elimination criterion is faulty in IRV, I KNOW THAT (next time 
> you
> call me an "IRV proponent", i am going to remind you that you don't 
> read).

Really!! So you expect me to memorize all your emails from weeks ago
and in your illogical mind if I fail to memorize all *your* emails,
that means that I "don't read"!! Well it's no wonder then that you
don't understand how IRV/STV work then and have to be repeatedly told
how it works by Abd ul and myself.

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info