On 11/22/2011 9:38 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: > So how about it? Can we try to rewrite the consensus statement to > include an endorsement of IRV3/AV3 and to make it more marketable to > #OWS and other folks?
IRV, and variations of it, are based on the mistaken belief that the candidate with the _fewest_ first-choice votes is the least popular.
Yes, that's better than plurality voting, which is based on the mistaken belief that the candidate with the _most_ first-choice votes is the most popular.
But just getting better results than plurality isn't persuasive ("marketable"). After all, plurality (FPTP) is such a low threshold, that it can almost be tripped over and end up with something better.
Note that the "declaration" leaves open the issue about the balance between IRV's advantages and disadvantages.
You can sign the statement and say in your signature that you support "IRV3/AV3, which is an improvement on IRV". This is compatible with the section about IRV that says some signers support it, and some don't.
Richard Fobes ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
