On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Dear Greg,
you wrote (25 Nov 2008):
I've studied every IRV election for public
office ever held in the United States, most
of which have their full ranking data publicly
available, and every single time IRV elected
the Condorcet winner, something I consider to
be a good, though not perfect, rule of thumb
for determining the "right" winner. When you
present a case in which IRV did not elect the
right winner, maybe I'll agree or maybe I'll
dispute your criteria, but at least then we'd
be off the blackboard and into the world of
real elections.
If I remember correctly, Abd wrote that, in every
IRV election for public office ever held in the
USA, the IRV winner was identical to the plurality
winner. Doesn't that mean that -- when we apply
your logic -- plurality voting always elects the
right winner?
Markus Schulze
Could you please spell out that logic? I'm not seeing how a claim that
IRV elects the right winner implies that plurality elects the right
winner. I'm thinking of Florida 2000, with the usual assumptions about
Nader voters, as a counterexample.
Seems to me you're arguing from the converse.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
