Places Where One Can Leave Comments Refuting Praises of IRV

[William Waugh]

https://www.stylusonline.org/news/uninews/2018/10/23/constitution-day-brings-voting-reform-lecture/?fbclid=IwAR0w35whJItEtTabITC5fkJ2BzVr3tcy1jW9GuhINW-gQzwF06qvX1iEeaw

https://www.facebook.com/TheCenterStrikesBack/posts/1803234419774130?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCz_9ehCJhWobRFwF1fJzJmLmDubm-cXykBzkNBzfIAfAEryH9WKFyEt6Z1nxXhqA3r72fU_k79fClRS-hezgzgTsP0GzzIr9qslQ-0pPtw79fIloYXsWlHJGEGmonvoyWi2lD3YZ3Y6I8HYy1AKi_TaJj6ChHqFv40t8Td0yIV_Iqr6r4eeCbbgwB4WeZUFKNzRF14AsQkGpuwxrdugwR1LNM&__tn__=-R

[NoIRV]

Refute the majority winner argument by saying that IRV only requires that the winner be preferred by a majority over ONE other candidate. Imagine a system where your ballot is like in IRV, but two candidates are picked randomly, all others are eliminated, and you find the "majority winner" among those two random candidates. I would hardly call that a "majority winner" but the only thing different in IRV is that the randomness is replaced by a sort of sensible process, but it can still feel random in elections with many candidates.

I like these simple arguments more than the typical WDS math arguments going into Condorcet winners and all that stuff. (Well, actually, I like the math arguments when I am on the receiving end, but I know that not everyone is as nerdy so simpler arguments work better in the real world.)

[NoIRV]

I wrote a comment on the first link. Who knows what untimely end it may have faced.

[Jan Kok]

" IRV only requires that the winner be preferred by a majority over ONE other candidate."

It's not even "by a majority". In Burlington, VT (the poster child example of IRV misbehavior), Kiss was elected by less than a majority, due to exhausted ballots.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:58 PM NoIRV <xyzxyz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Refute the majority winner argument by saying that IRV only requires that the winner be preferred by a majority over ONE other candidate. Imagine a system where your ballot is like in IRV, but two candidates are picked randomly, all others are eliminated, and you find the "majority winner" among those two random candidates. I would hardly call that a "majority winner" but the only thing different in IRV is that the randomness is replaced by a sort of sensible process, but it can still feel random in elections with many candidates.

I like these simple arguments more than the typical WDS math arguments going into Condorcet winners and all that stuff. (Well, actually, I like the math arguments when I am on the receiving end, but I know that not everyone is as nerdy so simpler arguments work better in the real world.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.