“Writing a few op-eds” isn’t much better. What’s the plan for
 building a grassroots movement?

 I’m not impressed by a slick website or a list of names. Appealing
 to credentials isn’t a theory of change, Ralph.

 On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter@aol.com> wrote:

     That's a pretty ridiculous put-down given that they're just
     getting started. I can't imagine, judging from the
     descriptions of the people on their staff, board of directors,
     and advisory board, that they're so stupid as to think that
     "tell your friends" is anything but the beginning of a much
     more sophisticated and well-planned long-term strategy. One
     way they're likely to promote their efforts is with op-ed
     articles in New York Times, Washington Post, and other major
     publications, as Rob Richie of FairVote and other IRV
     advocates have often done. My guess is that we'll begin seeing
     such articles very soon, maybe in the next week or two.

     -Ralph

     On 6/19/2025 4:17 PM, Michael Garman wrote:

     It would be neat if they set out an actual theory of change
     instead of just “tell your friends about our cool idea.”

     On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM Ralph Suter via
     Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote:

         You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says:


         "In almost all large-scale elections, the process of
         comparing pairs of candidates will identify the Consensus
         Choice, a single candidate who wins all their
         head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely event that no
         Consensus Choice exists, the ultimate winner can be
         determined by one of the following resolution methods:

             "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus
         Choice, the candidate whose largest head-to-head loss is
         smallest is declared the winner.

             "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The
         candidate with the most head-to-head wins is declared the
         winner. In the event that multiple candidates tie for
         most head-to-head wins, the tie is broken in favor of the
         one whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest.

             "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus
         Choice, Instant Runoff Voting is used to determine the
         winner."

         My biggest question is why they included instant runoff
         as one of the resolution methods, especially because on
         their FAQ page, they explain why it isn't a good method:

         "Instant Runoff Voting

         "Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank
         candidates in order of preference. Initially, only
         first-choice votes are counted. If no candidate has a
         majority (>50%), the candidate with the fewest
         first-choice votes is eliminated, and votes for that
         candidate are transferred to the voters’ next-ranked
         candidates. This process repeats until one candidate
         receives a majority of the remaining votes.

         "Under Consensus Choice, voters rank candidates
         similarly, but instead of using sequential elimination
         rounds, we use rankings to directly compare each
         candidate against every other candidate in head-to-head
         matchups. The candidate who wins against every other
         candidate individually is declared the winner.

         "Consensus Choice selects the candidate with the broadest
         support across the entire electorate.

         "As a result, Consensus Choice discourages divisive
         campaigning because winners must appeal broadly, not just
         to a faction or a particular base of supporters.

         "Example:

             "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a
         majority. Candidate C is eliminated, and votes transfer
         primarily to Candidate B, making B the winner—even if
         Candidate D (already eliminated) could have beaten B
         head-to-head.

             "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most
         pairwise wins against all others directly, immediately
         making B the winner without needing multiple rounds of
         eliminations.

         "Why it matters:

         "Because it eliminates candidates one at a time, Instant
         Runoff may eliminate a candidate early who would have
         broader appeal overall.

         "Consensus Choice encourages candidates to build broader
         support among voters to reduce toxic polarization. Under
         Instant Runoff Voting, the winning candidate only needs
         to beat the last remaining competitor head-to-head, which
         doesn't necessarily mean that the IRV winner has majority
         support when compared to other candidates.

         "In short, IRV focuses on sequential elimination rounds,
         while Consensus Choice evaluates comprehensive
         head-to-head comparisons to select the candidate most
         broadly supported by the electorate."

         -Ralph Suter

         On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM,
         election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com wrote:

         Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
         	election-methods@lists.electorama.com

         To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
         	http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com

         or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
         	election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com

         You can reach the person managing the list at
         	election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com

         When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
         than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."


         Today's Topics:

             1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze)


         ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         Message: 1
         Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:17:35 +0200
         From: Markus Schulze<markus.schulze8@gmail.com> <mailto:markus.schulze8@gmail.com>
         To:election-methods@lists.electorama.com
         Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
         Message-ID:<465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> <mailto:465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com>
         Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

         Hallo,

         in May 2025, "Better Choices for Democracy", a new Condorcet
         advocacy group, has launched its website:

         https://www.betterchoices.vote

         This group consists of people like Nic Tideman, Eric Maskin,
         Charles T. Munger Jr. and James Green-Armytage.

         They promote a Condorcet method called "Consensus Choice
         Voting": If there is a Condorcet winner, that candidate
         is the winner of Consensus Choice Voting. Otherwise, the
         winner is determined by IRV. See:

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A

         Interestingly, this Condorcet method doesn't even satisfy
         independence of clones.

         Let's say that candidate A is a Condorcet winner, but
         doesn't receive any first preferences. Consensus Choice
         Voting then selects candidate A.

         Now, let's say that candidate A is replaced by clones A1,A2,A3
         and that none of these clones is a Condorcet winner. Then, IRV
         kicks in and first eliminates A1, A2 and A3.

         Markus Schulze



         ------------------------------

         Subject: Digest Footer

         _______________________________________________
         Election-Methods mailing list
         Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com
         http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com


         ------------------------------

         End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 1
         ************************************************

         ----
         Election-Methods mailing list - see
         https://electorama.com/em for list info

I'm sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. I mean that as a statement of objective fact, not a put-down. I have never ridiculed you or other advocates of IRV and don't plan to start doing so. Criticism, yes. Ridicule, no, which is what you've been doing. If you have some serious criticisms of Better Choices for Democracy or anything on their website, I would like to read them, and I promise to take them seriously. But I can't take your half-baked knee-jerk one sentence put downs at all seriously. "Slick website"? Would you recommend a website that is much less "slick" and therefore less appealing? Are you admitting (or worried) that maybe their website is just as or nearly as appealing as Rank the Vote's? "Appealing to credentials"? So Rank the Vote doesn't do the same? What then is the point of all the well-credentialed people listed on Rank the Vote's website? I'm wondering if maybe you're jealous that the credentials of those on the Better Choices for Democracy website are just as impressive. The need for a "theory of change." Yes, of course. I'd bet serious money that they have one and are working to improve it. The fact that they don't describe it (yet) on a "theory of change"     or "strategy" page is hardly a serious criticism. Rank the Vote has spent years developing a strategy and describing it on its web page. At least give other people the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to do the same, and maybe even develop a strategy more persuasive than Rank the Vote's, given its dismally unsuccessful efforts to persuade voters to vote for adopting IRV in the 2024 elections. Of course, maybe Choices for Democracy will be even less successful. We'll find out soon enough. -Ralph > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:39 PM Michael Garman > <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > > “Writing a few op-eds” isn’t much better. What’s the plan for > building a grassroots movement? > > I’m not impressed by a slick website or a list of names. Appealing > to credentials isn’t a theory of change, Ralph. > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter@aol.com> wrote: > > That's a pretty ridiculous put-down given that they're just > getting started. I can't imagine, judging from the > descriptions of the people on their staff, board of directors, > and advisory board, that they're so stupid as to think that > "tell your friends" is anything but the beginning of a much > more sophisticated and well-planned long-term strategy. One > way they're likely to promote their efforts is with op-ed > articles in New York Times, Washington Post, and other major > publications, as Rob Richie of FairVote and other IRV > advocates have often done. My guess is that we'll begin seeing > such articles very soon, maybe in the next week or two. > > -Ralph > > On 6/19/2025 4:17 PM, Michael Garman wrote: >> It would be neat if they set out an actual theory of change >> instead of just “tell your friends about our cool idea.” >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM Ralph Suter via >> Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: >> >> You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says: >> >> >> "In almost all large-scale elections, the process of >> comparing pairs of candidates will identify the Consensus >> Choice, a single candidate who wins all their >> head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely event that no >> Consensus Choice exists, the ultimate winner can be >> determined by one of the following resolution methods: >> >>     "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus >> Choice, the candidate whose largest head-to-head loss is >> smallest is declared the winner. >> >>     "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The >> candidate with the most head-to-head wins is declared the >> winner. In the event that multiple candidates tie for >> most head-to-head wins, the tie is broken in favor of the >> one whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest. >> >>     "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus >> Choice, Instant Runoff Voting is used to determine the >> winner." >> >> My biggest question is why they included instant runoff >> as one of the resolution methods, especially because on >> their FAQ page, they explain why it isn't a good method: >> >> "Instant Runoff Voting >> >> "Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank >> candidates in order of preference. Initially, only >> first-choice votes are counted. If no candidate has a >> majority (>50%), the candidate with the fewest >> first-choice votes is eliminated, and votes for that >> candidate are transferred to the voters’ next-ranked >> candidates. This process repeats until one candidate >> receives a majority of the remaining votes. >> >> "Under Consensus Choice, voters rank candidates >> similarly, but instead of using sequential elimination >> rounds, we use rankings to directly compare each >> candidate against every other candidate in head-to-head >> matchups. The candidate who wins against every other >> candidate individually is declared the winner. >> >> "Consensus Choice selects the candidate with the broadest >> support across the entire electorate. >> >> "As a result, Consensus Choice discourages divisive >> campaigning because winners must appeal broadly, not just >> to a faction or a particular base of supporters. >> >> "Example: >> >>     "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a >> majority. Candidate C is eliminated, and votes transfer >> primarily to Candidate B, making B the winner—even if >> Candidate D (already eliminated) could have beaten B >> head-to-head. >> >>     "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most >> pairwise wins against all others directly, immediately >> making B the winner without needing multiple rounds of >> eliminations. >> >> "Why it matters: >> >> "Because it eliminates candidates one at a time, Instant >> Runoff may eliminate a candidate early who would have >> broader appeal overall. >> >> "Consensus Choice encourages candidates to build broader >> support among voters to reduce toxic polarization. Under >> Instant Runoff Voting, the winning candidate only needs >> to beat the last remaining competitor head-to-head, which >> doesn't necessarily mean that the IRV winner has majority >> support when compared to other candidates. >> >> "In short, IRV focuses on sequential elimination rounds, >> while Consensus Choice evaluates comprehensive >> head-to-head comparisons to select the candidate most >> broadly supported by the electorate." >> >> -Ralph Suter >> >> On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM, >> election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com wrote: >>> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to >>> election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >>> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:17:35 +0200 >>> From: Markus Schulze<markus.schulze8@gmail.com> <mailto:markus.schulze8@gmail.com> >>> To:election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>> Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy >>> Message-ID:<465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> <mailto:465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >>> >>> Hallo, >>> >>> in May 2025, "Better Choices for Democracy", a new Condorcet >>> advocacy group, has launched its website: >>> >>> https://www.betterchoices.vote >>> >>> This group consists of people like Nic Tideman, Eric Maskin, >>> Charles T. Munger Jr. and James Green-Armytage. >>> >>> They promote a Condorcet method called "Consensus Choice >>> Voting": If there is a Condorcet winner, that candidate >>> is the winner of Consensus Choice Voting. Otherwise, the >>> winner is determined by IRV. See: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A >>> >>> Interestingly, this Condorcet method doesn't even satisfy >>> independence of clones. >>> >>> Let's say that candidate A is a Condorcet winner, but >>> doesn't receive any first preferences. Consensus Choice >>> Voting then selects candidate A. >>> >>> Now, let's say that candidate A is replaced by clones A1,A2,A3 >>> and that none of these clones is a Condorcet winner. Then, IRV >>> kicks in and first eliminates A1, A2 and A3. >>> >>> Markus Schulze >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Election-Methods mailing list >>> Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com >>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 1 >>> ************************************************ >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see >> https://electorama.com/em for list info >>

 "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, the

 "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The candidate with the

 "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice,

 "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a majority.

 "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most pairwise wins

1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze)

Rank the Vote came out of the gate with a tangible strategy and playbook for grassroots voter education, endorsement seeking, and fundraising. You don’t have to like the organization or its cause, but you can’t deny that it has a plan in place and that it’s achieved results — winning dozens of campaigns and recruiting hundreds of thousands of supporters across the country. If the organization had popped up with a website, a few prominent backers, and little else, I’d have dismissed it as similarly misguided. I think this group is pushing a neat idea. I’d like to see it succeed. But I’m not seeing any evidence that it’s equipped to do so, and until that changes I’ll continue to do so. On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:40 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter@aol.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. I mean that as a > statement of objective fact, not a put-down. I have never ridiculed you or > other advocates of IRV and don't plan to start doing so. Criticism, yes. > Ridicule, no, which is what you've been doing. If you have some serious > criticisms of Better Choices for Democracy or anything on their website, I > would like to read them, and I promise to take them seriously. But I can't > take your half-baked knee-jerk one sentence put downs at all seriously. > > "Slick website"? Would you recommend a website that is much less "slick" > and therefore less appealing? Are you admitting (or worried) that maybe > their website is just as or nearly as appealing as Rank the Vote's? > > "Appealing to credentials"? So Rank the Vote doesn't do the same? What > then is the point of all the well-credentialed people listed on Rank the > Vote's website? I'm wondering if maybe you're jealous that the credentials > of those on the Better Choices for Democracy website are just as impressive. > > The need for a "theory of change." Yes, of course. I'd bet serious money > that they have one and are working to improve it. The fact that they don't > describe it (yet) on a "theory of change" or "strategy" page is hardly > a serious criticism. Rank the Vote has spent years developing a strategy > and describing it on its web page. At least give other people the benefit > of the doubt regarding their ability to do the same, and maybe even develop > a strategy more persuasive than Rank the Vote's, given its dismally > unsuccessful efforts to persuade voters to vote for adopting IRV in the > 2024 elections. > > Of course, maybe Choices for Democracy will be even less successful. We'll > find out soon enough. > > -Ralph > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:39 PM Michael Garman < > michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > >> “Writing a few op-eds” isn’t much better. What’s the plan for building a >> grassroots movement? >> >> I’m not impressed by a slick website or a list of names. Appealing to >> credentials isn’t a theory of change, Ralph. >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> That's a pretty ridiculous put-down given that they're just getting >>> started. I can't imagine, judging from the descriptions of the people on >>> their staff, board of directors, and advisory board, that they're so stupid >>> as to think that "tell your friends" is anything but the beginning of a >>> much more sophisticated and well-planned long-term strategy. One way >>> they're likely to promote their efforts is with op-ed articles in New York >>> Times, Washington Post, and other major publications, as Rob Richie of >>> FairVote and other IRV advocates have often done. My guess is that we'll >>> begin seeing such articles very soon, maybe in the next week or two. >>> >>> -Ralph >>> On 6/19/2025 4:17 PM, Michael Garman wrote: >>> >>> It would be neat if they set out an actual theory of change instead of >>> just “tell your friends about our cool idea.” >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM Ralph Suter via Election-Methods < >>> election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says: >>>> "In almost all large-scale elections, the process of comparing pairs of >>>> candidates will identify the Consensus Choice, a single candidate who wins >>>> all their head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely event that no Consensus >>>> Choice exists, the ultimate winner can be determined by one of the >>>> following resolution methods: >>>> >>>> "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, the >>>> candidate whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest is declared the >>>> winner. >>>> >>>> "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The candidate with the >>>> most head-to-head wins is declared the winner. In the event that multiple >>>> candidates tie for most head-to-head wins, the tie is broken in favor of >>>> the one whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest. >>>> >>>> "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, >>>> Instant Runoff Voting is used to determine the winner." >>>> >>>> My biggest question is why they included instant runoff as one of the >>>> resolution methods, especially because on their FAQ page, they explain why >>>> it isn't a good method: >>>> >>>> "Instant Runoff Voting >>>> >>>> "Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank candidates in order of >>>> preference. Initially, only first-choice votes are counted. If no candidate >>>> has a majority (>50%), the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is >>>> eliminated, and votes for that candidate are transferred to the voters’ >>>> next-ranked candidates. This process repeats until one candidate receives a >>>> majority of the remaining votes. >>>> >>>> "Under Consensus Choice, voters rank candidates similarly, but instead >>>> of using sequential elimination rounds, we use rankings to directly compare >>>> each candidate against every other candidate in head-to-head matchups. The >>>> candidate who wins against every other candidate individually is declared >>>> the winner. >>>> >>>> "Consensus Choice selects the candidate with the broadest support >>>> across the entire electorate. >>>> >>>> "As a result, Consensus Choice discourages divisive campaigning because >>>> winners must appeal broadly, not just to a faction or a particular base of >>>> supporters. >>>> >>>> "Example: >>>> >>>> "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a majority. >>>> Candidate C is eliminated, and votes transfer primarily to Candidate B, >>>> making B the winner—even if Candidate D (already eliminated) could have >>>> beaten B head-to-head. >>>> >>>> "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most pairwise wins >>>> against all others directly, immediately making B the winner without >>>> needing multiple rounds of eliminations. >>>> >>>> "Why it matters: >>>> >>>> "Because it eliminates candidates one at a time, Instant Runoff may >>>> eliminate a candidate early who would have broader appeal overall. >>>> >>>> "Consensus Choice encourages candidates to build broader support among >>>> voters to reduce toxic polarization. Under Instant Runoff Voting, the >>>> winning candidate only needs to beat the last remaining competitor >>>> head-to-head, which doesn't necessarily mean that the IRV winner has >>>> majority support when compared to other candidates. >>>> >>>> "In short, IRV focuses on sequential elimination rounds, while >>>> Consensus Choice evaluates comprehensive head-to-head comparisons to select >>>> the candidate most broadly supported by the electorate." >>>> >>>> -Ralph Suter >>>> On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM, election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to >>>> election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >>>> >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:17:35 +0200 >>>> From: Markus Schulze <markus.schulze8@gmail.com> <markus.schulze8@gmail.com> >>>> To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>>> Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy >>>> Message-ID: <465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> <465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >>>> >>>> Hallo, >>>> >>>> in May 2025, "Better Choices for Democracy", a new Condorcet >>>> advocacy group, has launched its website: >>>> https://www.betterchoices.vote >>>> >>>> This group consists of people like Nic Tideman, Eric Maskin, >>>> Charles T. Munger Jr. and James Green-Armytage. >>>> >>>> They promote a Condorcet method called "Consensus Choice >>>> Voting": If there is a Condorcet winner, that candidate >>>> is the winner of Consensus Choice Voting. Otherwise, the >>>> winner is determined by IRV. See: >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A >>>> >>>> Interestingly, this Condorcet method doesn't even satisfy >>>> independence of clones. >>>> >>>> Let's say that candidate A is a Condorcet winner, but >>>> doesn't receive any first preferences. Consensus Choice >>>> Voting then selects candidate A. >>>> >>>> Now, let's say that candidate A is replaced by clones A1,A2,A3 >>>> and that none of these clones is a Condorcet winner. Then, IRV >>>> kicks in and first eliminates A1, A2 and A3. >>>> >>>> Markus Schulze >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Election-Methods mailing listElection-Methods@lists.electorama.comhttp://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 1 >>>> ************************************************ >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >>>> info >>>> >>>

 "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, the

 "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The candidate with

 "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice,

 "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a majority.

 "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most pairwise wins

1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze)

Continue to be skeptical, excuse me. Apologies for the double message. On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Michael Garman < michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > Rank the Vote came out of the gate with a tangible strategy and playbook > for grassroots voter education, endorsement seeking, and fundraising. You > don’t have to like the organization or its cause, but you can’t deny that > it has a plan in place and that it’s achieved results — winning dozens of > campaigns and recruiting hundreds of thousands of supporters across the > country. If the organization had popped up with a website, a few prominent > backers, and little else, I’d have dismissed it as similarly misguided. > > I think this group is pushing a neat idea. I’d like to see it succeed. But > I’m not seeing any evidence that it’s equipped to do so, and until that > changes I’ll continue to do so. > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:40 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter@aol.com> wrote: > >> I'm sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. I mean that as a >> statement of objective fact, not a put-down. I have never ridiculed you or >> other advocates of IRV and don't plan to start doing so. Criticism, yes. >> Ridicule, no, which is what you've been doing. If you have some serious >> criticisms of Better Choices for Democracy or anything on their website, I >> would like to read them, and I promise to take them seriously. But I can't >> take your half-baked knee-jerk one sentence put downs at all seriously. >> >> "Slick website"? Would you recommend a website that is much less "slick" >> and therefore less appealing? Are you admitting (or worried) that maybe >> their website is just as or nearly as appealing as Rank the Vote's? >> >> "Appealing to credentials"? So Rank the Vote doesn't do the same? What >> then is the point of all the well-credentialed people listed on Rank the >> Vote's website? I'm wondering if maybe you're jealous that the credentials >> of those on the Better Choices for Democracy website are just as impressive. >> >> The need for a "theory of change." Yes, of course. I'd bet serious money >> that they have one and are working to improve it. The fact that they don't >> describe it (yet) on a "theory of change" or "strategy" page is hardly >> a serious criticism. Rank the Vote has spent years developing a strategy >> and describing it on its web page. At least give other people the benefit >> of the doubt regarding their ability to do the same, and maybe even develop >> a strategy more persuasive than Rank the Vote's, given its dismally >> unsuccessful efforts to persuade voters to vote for adopting IRV in the >> 2024 elections. >> >> Of course, maybe Choices for Democracy will be even less successful. >> We'll find out soon enough. >> >> -Ralph >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:39 PM Michael Garman < >> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >> >>> “Writing a few op-eds” isn’t much better. What’s the plan for building a >>> grassroots movement? >>> >>> I’m not impressed by a slick website or a list of names. Appealing to >>> credentials isn’t a theory of change, Ralph. >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a pretty ridiculous put-down given that they're just getting >>>> started. I can't imagine, judging from the descriptions of the people on >>>> their staff, board of directors, and advisory board, that they're so stupid >>>> as to think that "tell your friends" is anything but the beginning of a >>>> much more sophisticated and well-planned long-term strategy. One way >>>> they're likely to promote their efforts is with op-ed articles in New York >>>> Times, Washington Post, and other major publications, as Rob Richie of >>>> FairVote and other IRV advocates have often done. My guess is that we'll >>>> begin seeing such articles very soon, maybe in the next week or two. >>>> >>>> -Ralph >>>> On 6/19/2025 4:17 PM, Michael Garman wrote: >>>> >>>> It would be neat if they set out an actual theory of change instead of >>>> just “tell your friends about our cool idea.” >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM Ralph Suter via Election-Methods < >>>> election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says: >>>>> "In almost all large-scale elections, the process of comparing pairs >>>>> of candidates will identify the Consensus Choice, a single candidate who >>>>> wins all their head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely event that no >>>>> Consensus Choice exists, the ultimate winner can be determined by one of >>>>> the following resolution methods: >>>>> >>>>> "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, the >>>>> candidate whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest is declared the >>>>> winner. >>>>> >>>>> "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The candidate with >>>>> the most head-to-head wins is declared the winner. In the event that >>>>> multiple candidates tie for most head-to-head wins, the tie is broken in >>>>> favor of the one whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest. >>>>> >>>>> "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, >>>>> Instant Runoff Voting is used to determine the winner." >>>>> >>>>> My biggest question is why they included instant runoff as one of the >>>>> resolution methods, especially because on their FAQ page, they explain why >>>>> it isn't a good method: >>>>> >>>>> "Instant Runoff Voting >>>>> >>>>> "Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank candidates in order of >>>>> preference. Initially, only first-choice votes are counted. If no candidate >>>>> has a majority (>50%), the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is >>>>> eliminated, and votes for that candidate are transferred to the voters’ >>>>> next-ranked candidates. This process repeats until one candidate receives a >>>>> majority of the remaining votes. >>>>> >>>>> "Under Consensus Choice, voters rank candidates similarly, but instead >>>>> of using sequential elimination rounds, we use rankings to directly compare >>>>> each candidate against every other candidate in head-to-head matchups. The >>>>> candidate who wins against every other candidate individually is declared >>>>> the winner. >>>>> >>>>> "Consensus Choice selects the candidate with the broadest support >>>>> across the entire electorate. >>>>> >>>>> "As a result, Consensus Choice discourages divisive campaigning >>>>> because winners must appeal broadly, not just to a faction or a particular >>>>> base of supporters. >>>>> >>>>> "Example: >>>>> >>>>> "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a majority. >>>>> Candidate C is eliminated, and votes transfer primarily to Candidate B, >>>>> making B the winner—even if Candidate D (already eliminated) could have >>>>> beaten B head-to-head. >>>>> >>>>> "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most pairwise wins >>>>> against all others directly, immediately making B the winner without >>>>> needing multiple rounds of eliminations. >>>>> >>>>> "Why it matters: >>>>> >>>>> "Because it eliminates candidates one at a time, Instant Runoff may >>>>> eliminate a candidate early who would have broader appeal overall. >>>>> >>>>> "Consensus Choice encourages candidates to build broader support among >>>>> voters to reduce toxic polarization. Under Instant Runoff Voting, the >>>>> winning candidate only needs to beat the last remaining competitor >>>>> head-to-head, which doesn't necessarily mean that the IRV winner has >>>>> majority support when compared to other candidates. >>>>> >>>>> "In short, IRV focuses on sequential elimination rounds, while >>>>> Consensus Choice evaluates comprehensive head-to-head comparisons to select >>>>> the candidate most broadly supported by the electorate." >>>>> >>>>> -Ralph Suter >>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM, election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to >>>>> election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >>>>> >>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>> election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:17:35 +0200 >>>>> From: Markus Schulze <markus.schulze8@gmail.com> <markus.schulze8@gmail.com> >>>>> To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>>>> Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy >>>>> Message-ID: <465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> <465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >>>>> >>>>> Hallo, >>>>> >>>>> in May 2025, "Better Choices for Democracy", a new Condorcet >>>>> advocacy group, has launched its website: >>>>> https://www.betterchoices.vote >>>>> >>>>> This group consists of people like Nic Tideman, Eric Maskin, >>>>> Charles T. Munger Jr. and James Green-Armytage. >>>>> >>>>> They promote a Condorcet method called "Consensus Choice >>>>> Voting": If there is a Condorcet winner, that candidate >>>>> is the winner of Consensus Choice Voting. Otherwise, the >>>>> winner is determined by IRV. See: >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A >>>>> >>>>> Interestingly, this Condorcet method doesn't even satisfy >>>>> independence of clones. >>>>> >>>>> Let's say that candidate A is a Condorcet winner, but >>>>> doesn't receive any first preferences. Consensus Choice >>>>> Voting then selects candidate A. >>>>> >>>>> Now, let's say that candidate A is replaced by clones A1,A2,A3 >>>>> and that none of these clones is a Condorcet winner. Then, IRV >>>>> kicks in and first eliminates A1, A2 and A3. >>>>> >>>>> Markus Schulze >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Election-Methods mailing listElection-Methods@lists.electorama.comhttp://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 1 >>>>> ************************************************ >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for >>>>> list info >>>>> >>>>

> On 06/19/2025 6:56 PM EDT Michael Garman via Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > > > Rank the Vote came out of the gate with a tangible strategy and playbook for grassroots voter education, endorsement seeking, and fundraising. Ya know, Trump came down the escalator a decade ago with a playbook and marketing strategy and has succeeded far more than they deserve, TO OUR DETRIMENT. > You don’t have to like the organization or its cause, but you can’t deny that it has a plan in place and that it’s achieved results — winning dozens of campaigns and recruiting hundreds of thousands of supporters across the country. If the organization had popped up with a website, a few prominent backers, and little else, I’d have dismissed it as similarly misguided. It's true. Better Choices is still in the Ivory Tower and I am trying to influence changing that. I dunno if Nic Tideman will listen to me or not. There are several things they're doing wrong, regarding the IRV vs. Consensus choice and debate. The first thing is that we must not surrender the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" to the IRV crowd. Condorcet RCV (what they're calling "Consensus Voting") is RCV. It is no less RCV than is Hare RCV. > I think this group is pushing a neat idea. The "neat idea" is foundational to democracy where votes are valued equally and where all contingencies resolved by the ranked ballot are considered by the method. The "neat idea" is that: If more voters mark their ballots that Candidate A is preferred to Candidate B, then Candidate B is not elected. Now for anyone rejecting or diminishing that "neat idea", the first question to ask them is why *should* Candidate B be elected if more voters prefer Candidate A? The excuses that come from FairVote about that are pathetic. They *know* they can't really justify it, but because their method *needlessly* fails that basic value of democracy (majority rule, which is necessary to value our votes equally), they used to just ignore the issue, but failures keep just popping up. So they make up a bogus and circular argument and try to pretend it's scholarly: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08430 . That "neat idea" is less important to RankTheVote or FairVote advocates than just marketing their own half-baked solution and then *entrenching* it so that the "neat idea" (which is really just the equality of our vote) will never be considered because the half-baked idea is too entrenched in our politic to ever be changed. -- r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." . . .

If you don’t like the strategy, come up with a better one. Fight fire with fire, not with emails to a list read by the ivory tower set. On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 12:29 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > > > > On 06/19/2025 6:56 PM EDT Michael Garman via Election-Methods < > election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > > > > > > Rank the Vote came out of the gate with a tangible strategy and playbook > for grassroots voter education, endorsement seeking, and fundraising. > > Ya know, Trump came down the escalator a decade ago with a playbook and > marketing strategy and has succeeded far more than they deserve, TO OUR > DETRIMENT. > > > You don’t have to like the organization or its cause, but you can’t deny > that it has a plan in place and that it’s achieved results — winning dozens > of campaigns and recruiting hundreds of thousands of supporters across the > country. If the organization had popped up with a website, a few prominent > backers, and little else, I’d have dismissed it as similarly misguided. > > It's true. Better Choices is still in the Ivory Tower and I am trying to > influence changing that. I dunno if Nic Tideman will listen to me or not. > There are several things they're doing wrong, regarding the IRV vs. > Consensus choice and debate. The first thing is that we must not surrender > the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" to the IRV crowd. Condorcet RCV (what > they're calling "Consensus Voting") is RCV. It is no less RCV than is Hare > RCV. > > > I think this group is pushing a neat idea. > > The "neat idea" is foundational to democracy where votes are valued > equally and where all contingencies resolved by the ranked ballot are > considered by the method. > > The "neat idea" is that: If more voters mark their ballots that Candidate > A is preferred to Candidate B, then Candidate B is not elected. Now for > anyone rejecting or diminishing that "neat idea", the first question to ask > them is why *should* Candidate B be elected if more voters prefer Candidate > A? The excuses that come from FairVote about that are pathetic. They > *know* they can't really justify it, but because their method *needlessly* > fails that basic value of democracy (majority rule, which is necessary to > value our votes equally), they used to just ignore the issue, but failures > keep just popping up. So they make up a bogus and circular argument and > try to pretend it's scholarly: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08430 . > > That "neat idea" is less important to RankTheVote or FairVote advocates > than just marketing their own half-baked solution and then *entrenching* it > so that the "neat idea" (which is really just the equality of our vote) > will never be considered because the half-baked idea is too entrenched in > our politic to ever be changed. > > -- > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > . > . > . > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >

> On 06/21/2025 12:34 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > > > If you don’t like the strategy, come up with a better one. Fight fire with fire, not with emails to a list read by the ivory tower set. > The better strategy is telling the truth. Condorcet came up with a better method than Hare. He did it a half century before Hare. But, like Trump, you're saying that better marketing means that it's a better product. I'm saying that the fundamental principles of democracy are more important. When I critique FairVote (would this be fighting fire with fire?) they respond with the falsehood that I am anti-RCV or that I am harming the movement or, at the least, that I am making perfection be the enemy of the good. If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be. That means, in all contingencies where this is possible (I acknowledge the existence of Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox), that we must **always** value our votes equally. RankTheVote and FairVote don't believe that. RankTheVote and FairVote say that in the cases of Alaska 2022 (August) and Burlington 2009, we should *not* value our votes equally. All sorts of good, bad, and half-baked organizations and movements get proficient at marketing their good, bad, or half-baked ideas. Standing on the success of your marketing does not mean you're doing the world any good. -- r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." . . .

Good luck to you, my friend. You can keep whining till you’re blue in the face, but it’s not going to get you anywhere. If you spent a tenth as much time on movement building as you do moaning about FV you might have won something once. On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 3:45 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > > > > On 06/21/2025 12:34 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> > wrote: > > > > > > If you don’t like the strategy, come up with a better one. Fight fire > with fire, not with emails to a list read by the ivory tower set. > > > > The better strategy is telling the truth. > > Condorcet came up with a better method than Hare. He did it a half > century before Hare. > > But, like Trump, you're saying that better marketing means that it's a > better product. > > I'm saying that the fundamental principles of democracy are more important. > > When I critique FairVote (would this be fighting fire with fire?) they > respond with the falsehood that I am anti-RCV or that I am harming the > movement or, at the least, that I am making perfection be the enemy of the > good. > > If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the > correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be. That means, in all > contingencies where this is possible (I acknowledge the existence of > Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox), that we must **always** > value our votes equally. RankTheVote and FairVote don't believe that. > RankTheVote and FairVote say that in the cases of Alaska 2022 (August) and > Burlington 2009, we should *not* value our votes equally. > > All sorts of good, bad, and half-baked organizations and movements get > proficient at marketing their good, bad, or half-baked ideas. Standing on > the success of your marketing does not mean you're doing the world any good. > > -- > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > -- > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > . > . > . > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >

> If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be I, for one, don’t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good. On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 3:48 PM Michael Garman < michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > Good luck to you, my friend. You can keep whining till you’re blue in the > face, but it’s not going to get you anywhere. If you spent a tenth as much > time on movement building as you do moaning about FV you might have won > something once. > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 3:45 PM robert bristow-johnson via > Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 06/21/2025 12:34 PM EDT Michael Garman < >> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >> > >> > >> > If you don’t like the strategy, come up with a better one. Fight fire >> with fire, not with emails to a list read by the ivory tower set. >> > >> >> The better strategy is telling the truth. >> >> Condorcet came up with a better method than Hare. He did it a half >> century before Hare. >> >> But, like Trump, you're saying that better marketing means that it's a >> better product. >> >> I'm saying that the fundamental principles of democracy are more >> important. >> >> When I critique FairVote (would this be fighting fire with fire?) they >> respond with the falsehood that I am anti-RCV or that I am harming the >> movement or, at the least, that I am making perfection be the enemy of the >> good. >> >> If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the >> correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be. That means, in all >> contingencies where this is possible (I acknowledge the existence of >> Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox), that we must **always** >> value our votes equally. RankTheVote and FairVote don't believe that. >> RankTheVote and FairVote say that in the cases of Alaska 2022 (August) and >> Burlington 2009, we should *not* value our votes equally. >> >> All sorts of good, bad, and half-baked organizations and movements get >> proficient at marketing their good, bad, or half-baked ideas. Standing on >> the success of your marketing does not mean you're doing the world any good. >> >> -- >> >> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com >> >> "Imagination is more important than knowledge." >> -- >> >> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com >> >> "Imagination is more important than knowledge." >> >> . >> . >> . >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> >

> On 06/21/2025 3:49 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > > > > If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be > > I, for one, don’t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good. > The "as correct as it can possibly be" is not perfect. I acknowledge the existence of Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox. Nothing is perfect. But bad outcomes (such as thwarted majority causing unequal votes and spoiled election that harms voters for voting sincerely which then incentivizes tactical voting) due to unnecessary flaws are less correct than unavoidable bad outcomes. I, for one, believe in correcting unnecessary flaws. These unnecessary flaws are a consequence of an RCV method based on the wrong principles, more precisely the lack of principles. IRV is procedure someone thought up (and Condorcet did 40-some years before Hare and rejected the idea because he knew what could happen) with intent to solve a problem, essentially the spoiler effect (or IIA) when there are three or more candidates. Hare proposes a method without really telling us what principle the method is based on. Or, perhaps, Hare thinks that IRV gives voters a second-choice vote if their favorite candidate cannot be elected. But that's not true. It never applies to the voters behind the loser in the final round. Most of the time that doesn't change the outcome of the election, but when it does, it's always bad; spoiled election and all the bad things that come outa that. So IRV is a procedure without a principle. It just says "Count the highest-ranked votes for candidates that have not yet been defeated, then defeat the candidate with the least votes. Rinse and repeat." That's simple, but not a principle. Condorcet says "When more voters rank A over B than than to the contrary, B is not elected." That's also simple. The procedure is derived from that principle. The thing that IRV apologists have to justify is why *should* B be elected? Why is it a good thing that B is elected? What principle or what public good is it? -- r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." . . .

When you have a plan for a viable political movement for a Condorcet method superior to IRV, I will cheer it on and help you build it. On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 6:43 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > > > > On 06/21/2025 3:49 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> > wrote: > > > > > > > If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the > correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be > > > > I, for one, don’t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good. > > > > The "as correct as it can possibly be" is not perfect. I acknowledge the > existence of Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox. Nothing is > perfect. > > But bad outcomes (such as thwarted majority causing unequal votes and > spoiled election that harms voters for voting sincerely which then > incentivizes tactical voting) due to unnecessary flaws are less correct > than unavoidable bad outcomes. I, for one, believe in correcting > unnecessary flaws. > > These unnecessary flaws are a consequence of an RCV method based on the > wrong principles, more precisely the lack of principles. IRV is procedure > someone thought up (and Condorcet did 40-some years before Hare and > rejected the idea because he knew what could happen) with intent to solve a > problem, essentially the spoiler effect (or IIA) when there are three or > more candidates. Hare proposes a method without really telling us what > principle the method is based on. Or, perhaps, Hare thinks that IRV gives > voters a second-choice vote if their favorite candidate cannot be elected. > But that's not true. It never applies to the voters behind the loser in > the final round. Most of the time that doesn't change the outcome of the > election, but when it does, it's always bad; spoiled election and all the > bad things that come outa that. > > So IRV is a procedure without a principle. It just says "Count the > highest-ranked votes for candidates that have not yet been defeated, then > defeat the candidate with the least votes. Rinse and repeat." That's > simple, but not a principle. > > Condorcet says "When more voters rank A over B than than to the contrary, > B is not elected." That's also simple. The procedure is derived from that > principle. The thing that IRV apologists have to justify is why *should* B > be elected? Why is it a good thing that B is elected? What principle or > what public good is it? > > -- > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > . > . > . > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >