[EM] Burlington Vermont repeals IRV 52% to 48%

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-elmet at broadpark.no
Sat Mar 6 13:29:16 PST 2010

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 8:34 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:04 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> so, i'm for Condorcet too.  i am sorta agnostic about what to do 
>>>> about a cycle (because i really doubt it will happen at all often in 
>>>> reality) as long as it's a sensible resolution (Shulze would be okay 
>>>> if it was easy for a layman to understand, so probably Ranked Pairs 
>>>> is the simplest, but i might just say give it to the Plurality 
>>>> winner in the Smith set to toss the IRV haters a bone).
>> ...
>> i like Ranked Pairs best, too.  and if the Smith Set are three 
>> candidates, it and Shulze pick the same winner.
> Matters more that it needs to be explainable in a sales pitch.  Fine 
> tuning can wait til later unless there is a major reason why it should 
> come up front.

Another benefit to Ranked Pairs is that you don't have to confuse 
matters with WV versus Margins. I think you have to add half a point to 
equals, explicitly, in order to have Margins RP - or have a different 

For those that like cute names, the WV version we usually call Ranked 
Pairs has also been called "Maximum Majority Voting".

In matters of fine-tuning, River is somewhat better than Ranked Pairs, 
but it only provides a winner (not a complete ranking), and it is less 
well known.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list