[EM] So I got an email... / IIA

[robert bristow-johnson]

Thanks.  I did remember the article talking about the Condorcet paradox and that you can put in another method in case of a cycle.  I didn't remember that they were pushing a specific method.

I don't like the semantics in the article: 
"true majority rule" = Condorcet RCV
"rank-order voting" = Borda count RCV
but maybe the semantics were different in 2004.  I relate that timing to Burlington voting to adopt IRV in 2005, elections in 2006 and 2009, repeal in 2010.  Sometime after that, "IRV" sorta lost cachet and FairVote seemed to ditch it and relabel the product "RCV" which bothers me.  I think the words "Borda" or "Bucklin" or "Hare" or "Condorcet" should precede the term "RCV".

> On 04/11/2022 5:07 PM Hahn, Paul <manynote at wustl.edu> wrote:
> 
>  
> Robert, here's the paragraph that recommends a specific completion method:
> 
> "Majority rule still fails to work well sometimes, as the Condorcet paradox shows, though less often than other voting rules do. And in such cases, it has to be modified to identify a winner. There are many ways this can be done. Perhaps the simplest modification is as follows: If no one obtains a majority against all opponents, then among those candidates who defeat the most opponents in head-to-head comparisons, select as winner the one with the highest rank-order score."
> 
> That sounds like Copeland, completed with Borda, to me too.
> 



--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.