[EM] Fw: Two simple alternative voting methods that are fairerthan IRV/STV and lack most IRV/STV flaws

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:52 AM 1/18/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all
>lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.

Well, it's subjective without preference strength information. With 
that information, an objective assessment is possible.

Condorcet analysis is also objective from IRV ballot data, provided 
there is no widespread strategic voting, i.e., preference reversal. 
While in some situations, there is room for debate over whether or 
not the Condorcet winner is ideal, that doesn't apply to Burlington. 
We know that Montrose would win in a direct contest with each of the 
other candidates, there isn't any doubt about that, and the margin 
would be large.

We also know that the overall first-preference strength is such that 
there are three major parties, with the Democrats in the center, 
which means that Republicans generally prefer the Democrat over the 
Progressive, and the Progressives generally prefer the Democrat over 
the Republican. And the Democrats are divided, some preferring the 
Republican over the Progressive, some the Progressive over the 
Republican. Classic center squeeze situation, because, with it, the 
middle party tends to shrink a bit and become the smallest of the top 
three parties. The Burlington election problem last year is not rare, 
when there are three major parties.

While it's possible to assert that no-first-preference candidates 
shouldn't win (and I strongly disagree with this, even if it were 
ever the case in reality), this is a red herring that FairVote 
raises, they are desperate to find voting systems criteria that IRV 
satisfies and competing methods don't. In reality here, as to first 
preference, there are three parties which are *roughly* equal in 
first preference strength.