[EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

[C.Benham]

> Does Benham pass independence of clones?
Yes.

> On a longer term, I agree that Schulze is better than Woodall or Benham
> (perhaps with the exception if the voters are very strategic), but it
> doesn't seem Robert has the luxury of going for one of the advanced
> Condorcet methods.

Benham  is more resistant to Burial than Schulze.   A candidate who is 
top-ranked on more
than a third of the ballots can't be successfully Buried.

Say sincere is

43: A
03: A>B
44: B  (or B>A)
10: C

A is the sincere CW:  A>B 46-44,  A>C 46-10  (or 90-10).

With the ballots cast thus all Condorcet methods and also IRV elect A.

But say the B supporters Bury against A:

43: A
03: A>B
44: B>C (sincere is B or B>A)
10: C

Now A>B 46-44,    B>C 47-10,      C>A 54-46.

Now Schulze  (or Ranked Pairs or Smith//MinMax) using either the 
normally advocated Winning Votes
or Margins reward the strategists by electing B.  I think Losing Votes 
(especially if we don't allow above-bottom
equal-ranking) is much better and it still elects A.

Benham in this example elects the sincere CW.  It just sees that C has 
the fewest first-preference votes and is pairwise
defeated (by B) and so eliminates C and elects A.

Chris Benham


On 5/12/2019 10:04 am, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 04/12/2019 21.06, Markus Schulze wrote:
>> Dear Robert Bristow-Johnson,
>>
>> the best possible election method according to the
>> underlying heuristic of instant-runoff voting will
>> always be instant-runoff voting. Therefore, I don't
>> think that any supporter of instant-runoff voting
>> will be convinced by a hybrid of Condorcet voting
>> and instant-runoff voting.
> I think the point is to convince people who support IRV but also
> recognize the failure of Burlington 2009 as genuine. From such a
> position, it makes sense to advocate for a small change that fixes the
> problem of Condorcet noncompliance, instead of replacing IRV with Schulze.
>
> In the category of smaller changes, I would prefer Benham (which I got
> confused with Woodall earlier), but even that might be too large a
> change (as I said in my initial mail to Robert).
>
> Does Benham pass independence of clones?
>
> On a longer term, I agree that Schulze is better than Woodall or Benham
> (perhaps with the exception if the voters are very strategic), but it
> doesn't seem Robert has the luxury of going for one of the advanced
> Condorcet methods.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info