Rob Richie accidentally admits IRV is vulnerable to tactics


This is amazing! Rob was trying to criticize STAR Voting here, but his argument applies to IRV, not STAR Voting.

Absolutely true! Congratulations—you just proved why IRV is vulnerable to tactics. If I don’t think my favorite can win in the second round, it’s strategically unwise to support her. And because of vote splitting with Plurality based methods (like IRV), it’s entirely possible for a weak candidate to make it to the next round and then essentially become a spoiler.

But STAR Voting is different, because the second round survivors are based on SCORES, and thus generally free from vote splitting. Any candidate who can make it to the runoff with STAR Voting is, by definition, a contender with a GOOD CHANCE OF WINNING. And therefore such “turkey raising” is unwise in STAR.

It cannot be stressed enough how ironic it is that you just made an argument against STAR that applies to IRV, not STAR. Somehow you think this argument is ludicrous with IRV, because voters couldn’t possibly have enough foreknowledge of other voters’ plans, and thus it’s likely to “backfire”. You have used that exact argument for over a decade that I’ve known you. And YET, here you are wielding it in exact opposition to what logic would support. This is evidence that you are not trying to seek truth, but instead are starting with a conclusion and trying to bend the facts to fit it.


RCV really ought to be viewed as a “superset” of IRV, me thinks. (BTW, I really can only support the simple score/range method. Methods that encourage elector strategy are the only ones worthy of consideration. Let the voters make the decisions!)

For heaven sake, how about a damn LINK, Clay?


It’s a private forum.


Oh! We certainly cannot let the unwashed hay-tossing voters see that, then, can we?


What was Rob Richie’s reply?


He hasn’t replied yet. But I think I kind of nailed him.


He used the same argument in the publicly released paper on FairVote’s STAR position, too. He even brought up how top-two runoff could be similarly exploited, and cited a three candidate election.
Edit: @NoIRV The link is


Link? (Or is this just a private forum again?)


You well know that he will just pretend to not understand your reply if he acknowledges it at all. He’s not interested in the math or facts. He’s interested in whatever makes non-IRV reforms seem bad, whether that’s based on rational arguments or nonsense. I don’t want to jump into assuming whether he’s conscious of that behavior, but it’s how he behaves whether or not he intends it.

I’d love to be proven wrong and see him actually acknowledge and admit his error in thinking here. But how could he ever at this point face the prospect of having to defend IRV honestly? If he started admitting all the qualifications that are needed, it would undermine so much of his efforts over all these years.