[EM] Is it professional?

[David L Wetzell]

The short-cut in my hybrid has been used in some elections  and it had
potential to coopt the momentum of IRV, but I think that FairVote's upgrade
to top-two might take its place...

Now, The same might be true of BTR-IRV, the main draw-back is that seems to
work best with voters ranking the candidates.

I've been presuming that many voters won't want to do a lot of research and
rank all the candidates.  My suggestion doesn't require that to improve on
FPP.
And, the same can be said for the new upgrade FairVote is pushing for.
 Maybe with only 4 candidates, voters will take the time to look at all
four...

dlw

dlw


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet at lavabit.com> wrote:

> On 06/24/2013 05:08 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>> To ignore the simple upgrade to IRV that I have proffered
>> and defended at length on this list-serve,
>>   when you argue against IRV?
>>
>
> Yes, for many reasons. Among them: because other simple upgrades give way
> greater bang for the buck.
>
> Consider BTR-IRV: It's like IRV, except when eliminating, you don't remove
> the Plurality loser. Instead, you eliminate, of the two with worst
> Plurality results for that round, whoever is ranked below the other on the
> most ballots.
>
> That's two sentences, and boom, Condorcet compliance (and thus resistance
> against Burlington scenarios).
>
> I can hear the counter: "But it's not IRV! It doesn't have momentum!" But
> whatever force that counter has against BTR-IRV, it also has against your
> unproven hybrid.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130624/3c952f66/attachment-0004.htm>