Comparing these two is a waste of time. EACH has demonstrated
weaknesses that should have us working together on moving ahead.
Where to go?
Condorcet lets voters vote much as they are promised for IRV. It lets
voters vote for those they most like, ranking their votes to show
which they most desire - write-ins and equal ranking for two or more
candidates are permitted. The counting shows for each pair of
candidates which is more liked by the voters, and uses this in
deciding on the winner - the counting matrix can also help humans
compare strength of candidates. Often there is a CW that wins in
everyone of its pairs; else the cycle of those most liked is analyzed
to choose a winner.
Range/score also permits voting for multiple candidates. Its ratings
permit varying strength of approval among rated candidates - both more
power and more complexity than Condorcet.
Bucklin is another ranking method - perhaps a bit more complex than
Condorcet.
Other methods are possible - takes analysis to look for the best.
Dave Ketchum
On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Stéphane Rouillon wrote:
> Therefore IRV/STV is no better than plurality, but has extra very
> serious flaws, inequities, and vagaries that plurality does not
have.
I definitively disagree. Plurality is worst than IRV.
The flaws that IRV does have are real.
But these problems appear very less often than the splitting-vote
issue of FPTP.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
