<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but it is true in
the sense that any IRV winner would've won by Borda (and with less effort, I
might add).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>IRV adjusts ballots that include the eliminated alternatives
to transfer rankings upward when the eliminated alternatives are not last on
specific ballots, and the iteration is continued until one alternative records a
majority of #1 votes. The IRV process preserves the relative rankings of
alternatives that are not eliminated in an iteration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is easy to see that the IRV winner will be the alternative
with the highest Borda Count in the first round of ballot-counting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So, if Borda is "bad", why is IRV "good" - they are the same
thing when it comes to picking winners. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is fairly easy to prove that IRV always selects the Borda
winner. Personally, I have no objection to that, but it surprises me that IRV
advocates dislike Borda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>J Paul Kislanko<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>