On May 17, 2004, at 4:54 AM, Ken Taylor wrote:
Sorry, but this inspired my sleep deprived brain. Has anyone noticed that
many of the discussions on this list follow a familiar pattern? To wit:
Anti-IRVer: Here is an example that proves that IRV does not select the same
answer as Condorcet, therefore it is highly inferior to Condorcet, which
*does* select the same answer as Condorcet!
Pro-IRVer: No, you've got it wrong! We're not really sure, exactly, *what*
IRV picks, but we're darned sure that whatever it picks is better than
Condorcet!
Approvaler: Will you two stop bickering and see the light? Not only does
approval voting pick the exact correct answer in every situation, but it
also will do all your household chores for you, and it cures cancer!
Just meant to be humorous. Hope I didn't offend :)
I got a chuckle out of it. I suppose I fit in something like the third category. (IRNR rulez! ;)
I really do find it odd that the Condorcet argument sometimes sounds circular, with Condorcet being in the definition of what a voting system ought to be.
I base my valuation of a voting system on Utilitarian Values. IMFO, the "best" voting system is the one that most likely makes the most people the happiest.
My best attempt at getting inside the head of an IRVer is that they prefer (and think other people operate similarly) each choice HUGE amounts greater than the next lesser choice. Thus their perfect system is one that allocates their whole vote to their favorite-at-the-time. (Never mind that IRV might miss the compromise choice and jump straight to what some opposing faction prefers.)
Brian Olson http://bolson.org/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
