[EM] Is it professional?

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 06/24/2013 11:28 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> 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.

Consider these three scenarios.

Scenario 1: Voters don't rank now, but will rank when they see it's 
worth it. Here IRV will eventually crash but BTR-IRV is, well, better.

Scenario 2: Voters rank, contrary to your assumptions (but suggested by 
international evidence). Again, BTR-IRV does better.

Scenario 3: Voters don't rank and never will. BTR-IRV is here no worse 
than IRV.

Under what scenario does BTR-IRV *lose* against ordinary IRV?

> I've been presuming that many voters won't want to do a lot of research
> and rank all the candidates.

Yes, but to back up that presumption, you have to more or less assume 
that America is so special that the claim itself is impossible to disprove.

> My suggestion doesn't require that to improve on FPP.

Plain IRV itself is enough to "improve" upon FPP. This is like saying 
that I don't have to run very quickly to outrun a turtle.

> 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...

That won't help when the correct candidate is center-squeezed out of the 
way. The only way to ensure there is no center squeeze is to limit the 
number of candidates to two - and then you have plain old runoff.