No you didn't address my concerns. You just talked down to me and threw out a whole bunch of talking points.
If by "talking points" you mean, facts that support my claims, then sure, I did. I proved Range Voting is a better voting method than IRV.
For example you used examples that are not anything like the elections we run. We don't get 40 candidates.
Most of our discussions of IRV, as well as our social utility simulations, deal with anywhere from 3 to 6 candidates. I was just making the point that, with more, IRV falls apart even worse.
You don't know anything about our group or how it works, you've just parachuted in without doing research about us and demand that we research your system.
I'm not debating about your group, I'm debating about IRV, something which I know apparently more than any of you about. Consider that a lot of you here didn't even know what the name of your voting method was. Consider that I wrote this page: http://RangeVoting.org/IRV.html Consider that I have conducted phone conversations with Australian minor parties to ask them about their experiences using IRV. Have any of you done any kind of actual research about IRV? I'm guessing not, or at least very little.
I'm not "demanding" you use Range Voting, I'm just pointing out the advantages of it, which for some reason has been met with irrational hostility by several.
Again, it's not my job to do your work for you. I'm telling you how you can do something that is better for YOU and helps YOU. If you choose not to do it, that's your loss. Why I'm even still here debating with you is anyone's guess. Basically because I just love a good debate. It's 3:30am and I have to get up at 6:30. I'm up arguing still because, hell, I just love to debate I guess. Why be so hostile to someone who is only trying to help you help yourself?
Re: Missing the point
If by "talking points" you mean, facts that support my claims, then sure, I did. I proved Range Voting is a better voting method than IRV.
For example you used examples that are not anything like the elections we run. We don't get 40 candidates.
Most of our discussions of IRV, as well as our social utility simulations, deal with anywhere from 3 to 6 candidates. I was just making the point that, with more, IRV falls apart even worse.
You don't know anything about our group or how it works, you've just parachuted in without doing research about us and demand that we research your system.
I'm not debating about your group, I'm debating about IRV, something which I know apparently more than any of you about. Consider that a lot of you here didn't even know what the name of your voting method was. Consider that I wrote this page: http://RangeVoting.org/IRV.html Consider that I have conducted phone conversations with Australian minor parties to ask them about their experiences using IRV. Have any of you done any kind of actual research about IRV? I'm guessing not, or at least very little.
I'm not "demanding" you use Range Voting, I'm just pointing out the advantages of it, which for some reason has been met with irrational hostility by several.
Again, it's not my job to do your work for you. I'm telling you how you can do something that is better for YOU and helps YOU. If you choose not to do it, that's your loss. Why I'm even still here debating with you is anyone's guess. Basically because I just love a good debate. It's 3:30am and I have to get up at 6:30. I'm up arguing still because, hell, I just love to debate I guess. Why be so hostile to someone who is only trying to help you help yourself?