Dave wrote: > DIFFERENCE: While Condorcet compares EACH pair of candidates and develops > a matrix of pair counts to identify best liked, IRV puts emphasis on > patterns, giving preference to those that are ranked first. See example > below where B is much more popular than A, but IRV never sees this for C > is more popular than B among B backers - even though all these C backers > like B better than A. > Some call this an argument for IRV, claiming that those C votes > were against B. Could be, sometimes, but more likely is a simple minor > disagreement within B's party that does not create a smidgen of desire to > have A win.
I wouldn't say that this is an argument for IRV against Condorcet or an argument for Condorcet against IRV. In my opinion, this is simply a description of the count. An argument is something like "Method X violates independence from clones while method Y meets independence from clones." but not something like "Method X counts the votes in this manner while method Y counts the votes in that manner."
Perhaps it isn't an argument for or against any particular method, but I would consider it an important point to make about any particular method.
It is because IRV fails to count votes in a better way that contributes to (if not causes) its failing of more fundamental criteria important to every voting method.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
