[EM] Warren needs to double check his work.

[David L Wetzell]

Another might add, "This is why the number of competitive candidates and
the extent of low-info voters matters in the comparison".

dlw


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet at lavabit.com> wrote:

> On 06/24/2013 09:33 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>> There should be a few more fewer ranks in the red in his example.
>> http://rangevoting.org/**IrvIgnoreExample.html<http://rangevoting.org/IrvIgnoreExample.html>
>>
>> Also, I don't think voters care that much if their deeper preferences
>> aren't consulted when their top prefs get elected or come in 2nd place
>> and so it seems contrived to make a big deal out of it.  This does get
>> at why little is lost when only 3 rankings are allowed with IRV, which
>> then makes it easier to use those rankings as approval votes for a first
>> round that reduces the number of candidates much more quickly.
>>
>
> One man might say: "This does get at why little is lost when only 3
> rankings are allowed with IRV".
> The other man might say: "This does get at why full IRV is not much better
> than 3-candidate IRV".
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130624/fd310a6e/attachment-0004.htm>