<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
The discussion about IRV referred to something like P(IRV) and P(other), where those presumably represent the probability of<br>success of IRV vs that of other methods.<br><br>Burlington should show you that the probability of IRV ever making it to federal use is zero. I mean, can you be serious? Any proposal<br>for federal elections would be thoroughly scrutinized and examined. Do you think that Burlington's demonstration of IRV's spoiler<br>problem won't be found by those studying IRV's merit?<br><br>Over the decades, when confronted with IRV's spoiler problem, the IRV promoters always insisted that it's just "theoretical".<br><br>But now it can no longer be said to be only theoretical, because it has happened. In fact, most likely, if complete results were<br>always available from IRV elections, the spoiler problem would be found to happen in other instances as well. <br><br>(We should be contacting IRV opposition in the cities using it or considering it, to suggest that they insist that complete<br>election results be divulged after IRV elections. Maybe letters to the editor to papers in those cities too.)<br><br>Though I've heard some IRV-promoter rhetoric about it, I haven't heard an IRV-promoter's explanation for how that "theoretical"<br>problem actually happened, and an explanation for how he can still claim that IRV's spoiler problem is only theoretical.<br><br>David was using "x" to mean "merit" or something like that, when he spoke of x(IRV). Regarding IRV's merit, see above.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br> </div></body>
</html>