This page sums up argumentation against IRV quite nicely.
One observation. The "IRV Doesn't Scale Up" could also cover the
synchronized style counting. I mean the scenario where the ballots
are kept in various small counting centres but where only the
counting process is coordinated from some central site, e.g. giving
instructions to all local sites during the counting process on when
some candidate should be eliminated. I guess this approach would be a
typical response of the IRV promoters to these central counting
related problems.
Anther detail. In the last paragraph: blanks in a rankings ballot
could mean also "below all others". In many cases this is a good
approach to avoid unknown candidates getting "too good results".
You mentioned that IRV is better than plurality. It has also some
other good sides like reasonably good strategy resistance. But maybe
this page need not cover this kind of "IRV promoting stuff" if the
main focus is anyway to collect rational argumentation that points
out the weaknesses of IRV that the IRV promotion campaigns so easily
miss.
Juho
On Aug 6, 2008, at 8:49 , Brian Olson wrote:
Hopefully this can be a resource in the battle against mediocre
election methods.
http://bolson.org/voting/irv/
The short short version is:
IRV gets worse results on average in simulation
IRV has chaotic nonlinearities and can pick the wrong answer
IRV doesn't scale up
pro-IRV FUD is lies
On the other hand, maybe I've spent too much time in my own little
world and this doesn't make sense to anyone else. Feedback, anyone?
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
