4 ms·
One could advocate for the adoption of Smith-IRV. It's easy to explain (it's the same as IRV, we just filter it down to the Smith set first waves hand) and it s
by KerrickStaley 4y ago
One could advocate for the adoption of Smith-IRV. It's easy to explain (it's the same as IRV, we just filter it down to the Smith set first waves hand) and it satisfies the Condorcet criterion.
(I really like this framing BTW, separating the concepts of the Smith set and the tie-breaking process).
- tunesmith 4y agoI'd go for that. As far as I'm concerned, Smith-IRV is better than IRV in every circumstance. The only counterpoint I've seen are twisty arguments about a modified "Majority Criterion", where a single-member Smith Set might not (arguably) be someone that a majority "voted for". Which would seem to apply just as much to IRV as well, but IRV adherents that make this point seem to think that the mechanics of IRV somehow overcome that.
- fdsjgfklsfd 4y agoAlternatively: "It's the same as Condorcet, we just add multiple rounds for no reason." Why combine two systems to make a more complicated system when you could just use Condorcet directly?