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

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Thu Dec 5 05:39:48 PST 2019

On 05/12/2019 02.52, C.Benham wrote:
>> 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.

That's why I added the strategy exemption. I know that the methods that
generalize Minmax are easier to strategize against than are the
Smith-IRV hybrids -- Green-Armytage's paper is clear enough about that,
and that the main reason is burial.

I've been trying to construct a voting method that is just as resistant
(or nearly so) while also being monotone (and Smith). I'm pretty sure
what it would look like with three candidates without equal-rank
(fpA-fpC), but I've been completely stumped on four and more. But
recently I've had somewhat of a break: now I know, at least, how to go
about the process instead of fumbling my way by brute force.

Now if I just had the time, I could perhaps write a paper of my own
about it. But there's quite a bit of work to do yet before I have a
method, and I suspect its implementation will look very strange due to
the way the construction works.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list