[EM] Best IRV Tweak
dcarrera at gmail.com
Wed Jul 7 12:11:24 PDT 2021
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:11 PM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com>
> Yes, Kristofer, specifically it is Benham's "Raynaud(Gross Loser)" the
> version of Reynaud that Chris Benham devised to satisfy Plurality.
> Let's call it BRGL to avoid the question of Reynaud versus Raynaud.
Can also be called "Maximin"... I think... To me it looks like a mirror of
Minimax (using votes instead of margins): The winner is the candidate whose
lowest number of votes is higher. Maybe there is a subtle difference that I
haven't detected yet, BRGL = maximin. Though that's not how I would choose
to explain it to the public. The usual definition is clearer, especially to
someone who already knows IRV: "remove the candidate with fewest votes in
any pairwise contest and repeat".
Entirely aside from the issue of getting IRV advocates to accept a
Condorcet method... if I could waive a magic wand and get any method I want
implemented by a government... I think I'd still pick BRGL because its
simplicity creates transparency. I love RP but I want as many people as
possible to be able to grab the tally from each precinct and work out the
winner with a pencil.
It's proabably too late for Robert B-J to shift from BTR-IRV to BRDL in his
> presentation in Burlington, and not necessary, because his main point is
> that a conceptually and operationally small tweak of IRV totally fixes
> IRV's lack of Condorcet compliance. In fact, as suggested by "Robla," he
> should forget BTR and just graft a Condorcet check onto the front of IRV.
> [From there it's an easy future step to check for a CW among the remaining
> candidates at each round of the instant runoff ... a frequent proposal on
> the EM list].
Is it too late? I thought the discussion was postponed till next year.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods