At 11:08 PM -0500 3/10/06, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >At 09:39 PM 3/10/2006, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >> >Thanks for doing this analysis! This is BIG news in the small world >>>of voting methods! :-) >> >>How so? It's well known that IRV/AV/STV doesn't necessarily find the >>Condorcet winner. It shouldn't be too surprising that there are >>real-world examples. > >Actually, IRV proponents routinely claim that, yes, theoretically, >IRV can fail to select the Condorcet winner, but the circumstances >are so rare that they don't happen. So this is significant. > >I've also seen the claim that the IRV winner deserves to win in a >case like this, for some BS reason that I don't remember. It is hard >for me to remember nonsense.
One reason is that IRV honor later-no-harm. Methods that violate later-no-harm (like any Condorcet method) encourage insincere voting. That's a problem. You may prefer the tradeoff of Condorcet methods, but they have drawbacks as well. That said, I'm a little confused by Brian's summary of the election. As I read it, Miller is preferred to Kiss 3991 to 3455 in the pairwise table (at least that's what I take the "virtual round robin" to mean). But the Burlington results page give Kiss 3809 first-round first choices. So how can only 3455 voters prefer Kiss to Miller? Or am I misreading Brian's tables? Likewise, in the final round, Kiss beats Miller 4761 to 3986. Kiss must be preferred to Miller on 4761 ballots, no? Help me out here. -- /Jonathan Lundell. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
