[EM] No. Condorcet and Hare do not share the same problem with computational complexity and process transparency.

[Michael Garman]

No, they were promised that if their first-choice candidate was out of the
running, their vote would count for their second choice. Important
distinction!

These two examples indicate IRV isn’t perfect, I agree, but the fact that
there are only two out of over 500 US IRV elections shows that it’s a major
improvement from FPTP. Ossipoff’s encouragement of people to vote against
IRV because it isn’t perfect remains foolish.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 6:01 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 03/20/2024 5:46 AM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Obviously they must have only meant ‘your next or 2nd choice *among
> the un-eliminated candidates.”
> >
> > Well, yes. That’s intuitive.
> >
>
> No it's not.  See below.
>
> > > Then there’s the fact that the violation of the false-promise has
> happened right in front of FairVote’s face, at least in Burlington & Alaska.
> >
> > Whose ballots didn’t count for their next choices? If I were an Alaska
> voter and I ranked Begich first, my vote would go to whomever I ranked
> second. If I were a Palin or Peltola voter, it would still count for my
> first choice.
>
> The point is that the largest portion of Palin voters in Alaska (or the
> Wright voters in Burlington) actually *had* marked the centrist candidate
> (Begich in Alaska or Montroll in Burlington) as their 2nd-choice vote.
> They were promised that if they couldn't get their 1st choice (that is, if
> their 1st-choice candidate is defeated) that their 2nd-choice vote would be
> counted.
>
> That promise was not kept.
>
> It's never kept for the voters for the loser in the IRV final round, but
> most of the time (99.2% in the U.S.) it doesn't make any difference.  But
> in these two elections it *did* make a difference.  So these Palin voters
> and these Wright voters that were promised (like we all were promised) that
> they could freely vote for their favorite candidate without fear of wasting
> their vote and helping elect the candidate they hated, that promise was not
> kept.  Simply by marking their favorite candidate as #1, they literally
> *caused* the election of their least-favorite candidate.
>
> --
>
> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> .
> .
> .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240320/710a711a/attachment.htm>