Hash: SHA1

Fellow students of mathematics: This concept (which I admit I had not
through when I voted for it) now seems to me to fall afoul of the famous
Impossibility Theorem (for which work I think he shared a Nobel Prize).
Arrow showed that legislative choices are not transitive, much to the
of all, especially legislators. Here ranking voters are the legislators. The
outcomes are not determined by a transitive logic and will appear
arbitrary in
sequencial binary analyses.

That's actually a good argument for IRV over (uh... has to look back at the
original mail) Condorcet voting. IRV can be modelled as a non-instant
runoff, with the voters being presented with a shorter list of candidates
in each round; the only hard thing about IRV is getting voters to
understand that, rather than thinking this is some sort of weighted vote
system (a common misconception).

Condorcet assumes that the binary choices *are* transitive, while IRV only
asks, "Well, if you can't have A, for whom would you vote, if anyone?"

- --
"We are truly sleepwalking through history. ... This war is not
  necessary at this time." - Sen. Byrd on Iraq, 12 February 2003
Political gadfly and freelance nerd: <URL: >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA