Markus, That observation is incorrect, as there was a come-from behind winner in the November Pierce County IRV election, as well as in the famous Ann arbor mayoral election in the 70s. But also, your logic is odd...Quite often plurality rules will happen to elect a Condorcet-winner candidate...but that fact is not compelling since it also frequently elects the Condorcet-loser. I can point to MANY examples where plurality has failed to elect a "rightful" winner (often electing the Condorcet-loser). In none of the IRV elections has the Condorcet-loser been elected (and cannot be). The point is that IRV does NOT always elect the plurality leader.
Terry Bouricius ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Schulze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 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 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info