[EM] Just to let you know...

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Fri Jan 13 13:16:01 PST 2023

On 13.01.2023 20:38, Markus Schulze wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> in your paper, you criticize IRV for violating
> precinct summability and then you propose
> bottom-two-runoff as an alternative. This
> doesn't make much sense.

The impression I got from reading Robert's paper is that he goes:

"Here are some properties that Condorcet methods have that IRV doesn't. 
Among these are summability. IRV advocates don't seem to care much about 
summability, so I'll play by their game; I'll propose a variant of IRV 
that patches its greatest flaw."

I.e. that BTR is a way to fix IRV, but with the implication that better 
methods exist if the voters want summability. He doesn't go into what 
those methods are because it's beside the point.

I agree that it could be more clearly stated, though. And as a Condorcet 
nitpicker, I would probably also say that the paper could mention the 
theoretical existence of Condorcet cycles in passing, so that the 
IRVists can't say "hey, the property he desires, that if A beats B 
pairwise then B can't be elected... it sometimes is impossible to pass! 
So avert your eyes from this propaganda and support IRV instead!".


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list