[EM] Learning from IRV's success

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Bob Richard wrote:
> It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care 
> a lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what 
> it's called.
> 

If true, that is unfortunate. Perhaps we would have to pick a better 
criterion that is also easy to understand, something like the (weak) 
Favorite Betrayal Criterion. But if we have to do that, then a lot of 
otherwise good methods go out the window.

On the other hand, both Nanson and Bucklin has been used in the US, and 
neither of these pass LNHarm.