[EM] Learning from IRV's success

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jul 8, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 8.7.2011, at 17.16, Andy Jennings wrote:
>
>> Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do  
>> with it. For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed  
>> sensible, too: instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs,  
>> collect all the required information at once and then act as if  
>> there were runoffs. That fails to account for the dynamics between  
>> the rounds, but that's a subtle detail and might easily be missed.
>>
>> I, too, must admit that IRV has a natural feeling to it.  I had a  
>> friend who described to me a system he thought of "on his own" and  
>> he ended up describing IRV.

And MANY of us asking for Condorcet probably see it as fitting the  
above description - for the voter.

It is when we notice that IRV counting can stray FAR from awarding to  
the CW, that our attention can turn to Condorcet which:
.     Has counting that awards to deserving candidates.
.     Can easily handle equal ranking.
.     Can learn to award to write-ins (when they are deserving).

Dave Ketchum
>
> I agree with that (as one reason). It is a bit  like natural  
> selection, or a like fight of strong men where the weakest ones must  
> leave the arena first.
>
> Juho