Thanks very much. Let me clarify my question... > > Which approach is right? > > The only non-PR way I can think to do IRV to obtain a ranking of the > candidates is to > 1. find the IRV winner > 2. delete him from all the ballots as though he hadn't been an option > 3. repeat. > > This seems like too much work to me, so I wouldn't suggest > using IRV for > this. > > The method you describe is interesting, though. In the single-winner > case, it seems equivalent to Plurality.
It is almost like plurality plus run-offs, because a team doesn't get ranked x until a majority vote it higher than all remaining teams. For example, with 65 voters, suppose the first place votes are A = 31; B=25, C=9. There's no majority, so votes for second are added in. A=31+15=46; B=25+22=47; C=9+28=37. Now B leads A and both have majorities. My question is, at this point is it better to award only 1st to A and then proceed to the next round, or go ahead and award 2nd to B since B also has a majority? It's not much work the way I do this. Let each time have its own row in a matrix that has element (team),j = votes for (team) for all ranks from 1 to j inclusive. Then sort column 1, if there's a winner sort remaining rows on column 2, etc. The philosophical question comes up because if there's a tie at any step, going to the next column can result in a "win" for the rank in question by a team that was not involved in the tie, and this made me think it would always be right to let an iteration determine only one "winner". A few uses, though, made me think that is less desirable than I'd thought. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info