<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Mar 12, 2006, at 8:28 AM, radio deli wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Dear Jan,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">I saw your post on the Elections Methods List. As a Vermont legislator, we may have to decide the issue of IRV on a statewide basis. To be honest, I'm not very enthusiastic about IRV. I would prefer to support the candidate (not plural) of my choice, and if a runoff must occur between candidates I didn't support, then make a new decision based on the contest at hand. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">What are the problems you see with IRV? Could you explain them in a way that people without a statistics degree (like me) could comprehend? I hope you have a chance to respond---you seem quite knowledgeable on the topic!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Best Regards,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Rep. Jim Condon</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">Colchester, VT </FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">----</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">election-methods mailing list - see <A href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</A> for list info</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Perhaps the biggest problem in implementing IRV on a state-wide basis has to do with the computation and data requirements of IRV. IRV requires that all the ballot data be collected in one place at one time and processed together. You can't just have precincts report their partial sums, they have to report the full contents of each ballot. IRV becomes awkward in hand-count situations, it really works better on computer. There are still clever ways to do it by hand with paper, see <A href="http://bolson.org/voting/manual.html#IRV">http://bolson.org/voting/manual.html#IRV</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>There is still on-going debate about the quality of solution IRV reaches. I prefer Virtual Round Robin (Condorcet's Method) for counting up rankings ballots (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...). VRR is intermediate-summable, and precincts can do a local count and report in a small summary. Anecdotally, IRV is likely to miss a popular 2nd choice compromise candidate that VRR would find as the truly most broadly popular choice when everyone has a minority extremist 1st choice.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I disagree on the feeling of desiring to re-vote and have a full runoff. It may be that educating people on this point will have to be part of the preparations for a first ranked choice (IRV or VRR) election. There is no loss of expressivity or voting power by doing the whole vote at once on a ranked ballot. You just have to be honest with yourself when filling out the ballot. Who is your favorite? If they weren't on the ballot who would you vote for (who is you second choice)? If neither of your first two choices were on the ballot, who would you put an old fashioned one-vote behind? And so on. Your vote is a record of your conscience about how you feel about the choices. And then all the votes are counted up, the people have spoken, their will be done. There will still be winners and losers no matter how many times you go back to the polls and how emphatically you cast your one vote. May as well get it done efficiently and find the best result we can.</DIV><BR><BR><DIV> <DIV>Brian Olson</DIV><DIV><A href="http://bolson.org">http://bolson.org</A>/</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>