EM list-- My standard 3-candidate IRV badexample works fine to show IRV's failure of Participation, if I temporarily remove some of the C voters: 40: ABC 25: B 20: CBA C gets eliminated & transfers to B, and B wins. But then, 15 other people whose sincere preference is CBA decide to do their civic duty, and take the trouble to show up & vote, in the hopes that they might improve the outcome for themselves and those whom they care about: 40: ABC 25: B 35: CBA *** Now, C eliminates B, and then C loses to A, and A wins. (If anyone objects to B voters not listing a 2nd choice, B is middle, and it's reasonable to assume that their 2nd choice votes would go both ways, if B voters even have a preference between A & C. In any case, the example works even if B's 2nd choice transfers aren't exactly equal in both directions. I didn't list B voters' 2nd choices because I wanted to simplify). *** They should have stayed home if they were going to vote sincerely in IRV. *** By the way, it's obvious that if C were someone's 2nd choice, and their 1st choice were some D who was going to immediately get eliminated, it would be a big mistake for a D voter to list a 2nd choice in that election. If he did, then he makes A win. If he truncates, voting only for D, then B wins. So the IRVies' claim that IRV doesn't give incentive to truncate isn't true, just as IRV also gives people good reason to stay home rather than show up & vote sincerely. *** Mike Ossipoff ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
