[EM] BTR-like phrasing of Benham

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Sat Dec 7 12:22:06 PST 2019

On 07/12/2019 19.32, Richard Lung wrote:
> "Tell that to the IRVists" is not an argument. You could say that about
> any system partisans.

It's not an argument against the claim "elimination is bad". It's an
explanation of the context. At this point, I think the best way to
highlight that context is simply to quote Robert:

> So if I had my druthers, it would not be BTR-STV.  But here I am in Burlington Vermont of all places. 

In other words, if you have to choose a method in a vacuum, it should
not be BTR-STV. If you have to choose a method in a vacuum and the
electorate is strategic and you want to use Benham, you should not use
my language to implement it.

The whole point of the language is to produce something that is close
enough to IRV to be acceptable to the partisans or partisan-friendly. If
you didn't have that constraint, you wouldn't need to do that. But for
people who are in that situation, my language could be useful.

(Now, if I were to argue in favor of or against elimination as a
mechanism, I would've said something entirely different :-)

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list