[EM] Approval-enhanced IRV (take 2)

[C.Benham]

Toby,

The Approval-enhanced IRV method I devised and presented is not a 
"kludge", and even if it is I reject your insinuation that I have been 
inconsistent or hypocritical.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kludge

> *:*a haphazard or makeshift solution to a problem and especially to a 
> computer orprogramming 
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/programming>problem


STAR is a garbage method that has never been used and it appeals to some 
people purely because it is simple (and because they think IRV is bad 
and it's not IRV).

A "kludge" for it is not so bad because it is a kludge, it is bad idea 
because it is doing something with STAR other than pointing out its 
flaws and rejecting it.

IRV on the other hand is an old established method that is (at least) 
quite good. Improving on it is difficult without sacrificing some of the 
properties (or criterion
compliances) it has that its many supporters like.

Chris

On 24/08/2023 11:44 pm, Toby Pereira wrote:
> Whether it's obstinacy or not, it was because Chris criticised the 
> idea of a STAR "kludge" before presenting an IRV "kludge" less than 
> two hours later.
>
> In any case, as I suggested with your own STAR improvement previously, 
> I'm not sure the best improvement from a particular method is to first 
> determine the winner of the original method and then devise some add-on.
>
> Toby
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 14:56:20 BST, Forest Simmons 
> <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023, 12:29 AM Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>     But of course, as with STAR, any complex add-on to the method is
>     unlikely to ever be adopted, regardless of how much better it is
>     in theory...
>
>
> When an improvement like this one is suggested along with examples of 
> the problem it fixes and an explanation of why those examples were not 
> just lucky flukes ... why am I always surprised at the resistance to 
> any thought about the possibility of change?
>
> There has to be a better explanation than pure obstinacy ... right?
>
> fws
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230825/eea91853/attachment-0001.htm>