Here are some stats I just calculated. It seems like Kevin Venzke's "No-elimination IRV" is ever so slightly more strategy resistant than ordinary IRV. It might not be worth it, complexity wise, but it's still interesting, as it makes it (as I know it) the record holder for strategy resistance under Condorcet, resolvability, and UD. I'm using his type one method. 50k elections, 32k tests per election, impartial culture: Here's Schwartz,IRV: Ties: 0 Burial, no compromise: 3473 0.06946 Compromise, no burial: 12450 0.249 Burial and compromise: 41 0.00082 Two-sided: 3 6e-05 Other coalition strats: 7720 0.1544 ========================================== Manipulable elections: 23687 0.47374 and Schwartz//IRV: Ties: 0 Burial, no compromise: 3450 0.069 Compromise, no burial: 10949 0.21898 Burial and compromise: 1432 0.02864 Two-sided: 8 0.00016 Other coalition strats: 7754 0.15508 ========================================== Manipulable elections: 23593 0.47186 And here's Schwartz,No-elimination IRV: Ties: 1 (2e-05) Burial, no compromise: 3463 0.0692614 Compromise, no burial: 12568 0.251365 Burial and compromise: 12 0.000240005 Two-sided: 6 0.000120002 Other coalition strats: 6557 0.131143 ========================================== Manipulable elections: 22606 0.452129 and Schwartz//No-elimination IRV: Ties: 0 Burial, no compromise: 3433 0.06866 Compromise, no burial: 11175 0.2235 Burial and compromise: 1285 0.0257 Two-sided: 3 6e-05 Other coalition strats: 6452 0.12904 ========================================== Manipulable elections: 22348 0.44696 The higher strategy resistance mainly comes out of a lower "Other" incentive; hence the modification is most likely reducing pushover. -km