[EM] Brief comment about IRV discussion

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 20 10:47:17 PST 2012

The discussion about IRV referred to something like P(IRV) and P(other), where those presumably represent the probability of
success of IRV vs that of other methods.

Burlington should show you that the probability of IRV ever making it to federal use is zero. I mean, can you be serious? Any proposal
for federal elections would be thoroughly scrutinized and examined. Do you think that Burlington's demonstration of IRV's spoiler
problem won't be found by those studying IRV's merit?

Over the decades, when confronted with IRV's spoiler problem, the IRV promoters always insisted that it's just "theoretical".

But now it can no longer be said to be only theoretical, because it has happened. In fact, most likely, if complete results were
always available from IRV elections, the spoiler problem would be found to happen in other instances as well. 

(We should be contacting IRV opposition in the cities using it or considering it, to suggest that they insist that complete
election results be divulged after IRV elections. Maybe letters to the editor to papers in those cities too.)

Though I've heard some IRV-promoter rhetoric about it, I haven't heard an IRV-promoter's explanation for how that "theoretical"
problem actually happened, and an explanation for how he can still claim that IRV's spoiler problem is only theoretical.

David was using "x" to mean "merit" or something like that, when he spoke of x(IRV). Regarding IRV's merit, see above.

Mike Ossipoff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120120/b4d4536f/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list