[EM] how strong is support for IRV on this mailing list?

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 10/31/11 1:55 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:
> On the other hand, I think you would have a very hard time getting IRV 
> supporters to even consider this method. They don't seem very open to 
> ANY changes to IRV at all.  Someone once proposed a small change to 
> IRV called IRV-BTR where the step of eliminating the one candidate 
> with the fewest first place votes was replaced with taking the two 
> candidates with the fewest first place votes and eliminating the one 
> that would lose in a one-on-one race between those two.  It stands for 
> IRV-Bottom Two Runoff and it actually meets the Condorcet criterion.

it does, but IRV-BTV is still tabulated like IRV, so it isn't naturally 
precinct summable as are most other Condorcet-compliant methods (those 
based on margins).

>  It would probably be an acceptable compromise for many of the 
> Condorcet supporters here.  But it has gotten no traction among IRV 
> supporters.

are these staunch IRV supporters here on this list?  i know about the 
FairVote contingent but how is it that people on this list who are (or 
should be) so aware of exactly what happens with IRV when the "spoiler" 
is not a fluke (like Nader) but the race is one between 3 or 4 
candidates that are *all* viable potential winners?  this was the case 
in Burlington 2009 and even Rob Ritchie cannot continue to claim that 
IRV worked just fine, or better than all other alternatives, in that case.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."