Just today, the conservative online US news publication "tippinsights" published an editorial that includes some of the key arguments conservative opponents of ranked-choice voting (by which they invariably mean IRV and never mention Condorcet or any other ranked choice voting methods) have been using to oppose it. Their arguments are not unreasonable, though also not especially persuasive. What's interesting, however, is that their arguments would mostly not apply to Condorcet methods. If Condorcet methods are ever used in major elections or even prominently advocated, conservative opponents of IRV might oppose them as much as they now oppose IRV (though maybe not -- I'm not at all certain), but they would have to argue against them in very different ways. The article, entitled "Regressive Ranked-Choice Racket Redefines Democracy," is posted at: https://tippinsights.com/regressive-ranked-choice-racket-redefines-democracy/ I'd appreciate any comments or critiques anyone may want to post. -Ralph Suter

“One person, one vote”. Every enfranchised voter has an equal influence on
government in elections because of our inherent equality as citizens and this is
independent of any utilitarian notion of personal investment in the outcome. If I
enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, your
vote for Candidate B counts no less (nor more) than my vote for A. The
effectiveness of one’s vote – how much their vote counts – is not proportional to
their degree of preference but is determined only by their franchise. A citizen with
franchise has a vote that counts equally as much as any other citizen with
franchise. For any ranked ballot, this means that if Candidate A is ranked higher
than Candidate B then that is a vote for A, if only candidates A and B are
contending (such as in the RCV final round). It doesn’t matter how many levels A
is ranked higher than B, it counts as exactly one vote for A.

> On 06/24/2025 5:04 PM EDT Ralph Suter via Election-Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > > > Just today, the conservative online US news publication "tippinsights" published an editorial that includes some of the key arguments conservative opponents of ranked-choice voting (by which they invariably mean IRV and never mention Condorcet or any other ranked choice voting methods) have been using to oppose it. Their arguments are not unreasonable, though also not especially persuasive. What's interesting, however, is that their arguments would mostly not apply to Condorcet methods. If Condorcet methods are ever used in major elections or even prominently advocated, conservative opponents of IRV might oppose them as much as they now oppose IRV (though maybe not -- I'm not at all certain), but they would have to argue against them in very different ways. The article, entitled "Regressive Ranked-Choice Racket Redefines Democracy," is posted at: > https://tippinsights.com/regressive-ranked-choice-racket-redefines-democracy/ > > I'd appreciate any comments or critiques anyone may want to post. It seems to me that "a Candidate No One Wants" is a critique that Hare RCV proponents have lodged against Condorcet. >>> "The system now transfers Johnny's vote to B. It falsely equates mild preference with passionate support," That is a falsehood. It doesn't say diddley-shit about the degree of Johnny's support for B. It says this and this only: "If Johnny can't have his first choice, D, elected then Johnny is voting for B." Again, I've said this soooo many times when I argue with Score or STAR advocates: “One person, one vote”. Every enfranchised voter has an equal influence on government in elections because of our inherent equality as citizens and this is independent of any utilitarian notion of personal investment in the outcome. If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for Candidate B counts no less (nor more) than my vote for A. The effectiveness of one’s vote – how much their vote counts – is not proportional to their degree of preference but is determined only by their franchise. A citizen with franchise has a vote that counts equally as much as any other citizen with franchise. For any ranked ballot, this means that if Candidate A is ranked higher than Candidate B then that is a vote for A, if only candidates A and B are contending (such as in the RCV final round). It doesn’t matter how many levels A is ranked higher than B, it counts as exactly one vote for A. The reason that our votes must count equally is not that our support or enthusiasm or passion for the candidates we support are equal. The reason that our votes must count equally is that ***we*** are equal. At least those of us with franchise are equal. >>> "In New York City, every one of a voter's ranked preferences is guaranteed to count—whether that voter understands the process or not." Not it's not guaranteed to count. Such bullshit. These guys are as stupid (or as dishonest) as IRV apologists (not counting Chris Benham, of whom I have the utmost respect). Only the ranked preference of the highest-ranked candidate not-yet-defeated is counted. If you're not voting for the loser in the IRV final round, then your 2nd-ranked preference will be counted when your 1st-ranked candidate is defeated. If your 1st-ranked candidate is still in play, IRV *totally* ignores what ranking you did below your 1st rank. >>> "However, fairness isn't uniform under ranked-choice voting; it is algorithmically manipulated and regionally inconsistent." It has *nothing* to do with region where the voter resides. There *are* some inconsistencies that result from the algorithm. Everyone gets to have their 2nd-choice vote be counted when their 1st-choice candidate is defeated. Everyone except those who voted for the loser in the IRV final round, that is. >>> "Worse, this system opens the door for tactical collusion between candidates. Second and third frontrunners can publicly endorse each other as second-choice picks to box out the frontrunner rival. Such strategic endorsements would be considered outright collusion—and grounds for disqualification—both in professional sports and business under antitrust law. But in ranked-choice elections, this behavior is not only legal; it's rewarded. >>> >>> "This political maneuvering undermines the foundational principles of democratic fairness and transparency." HORSESHIT!!! There is nothing opaque about it. Nothing undemocratic about politicians or activists or voters colluding together to get something done that they collectively want done. Now the integrity of sports, professional or not, is that the game is an honest competitive game for us to witness. We spectators are deprived of an honest game if competitors or teams collude to throw a game. Business antitrust laws are there to protect we consumers from fraud and price gouging that the free market is intended to protect us from. There is NOTHING, nothing at all wrong with legislators compromising and "colluding" together to get legislation passed that their collective constituency wants. There is nothing wrong with Fusion candidates. There is nothing wrong with two clones running for the same office and encouraging their supporters to also support the other clone candidate. >>> "Most voters couldn't name five of these contestants, let alone order them by rank." Then they don't have to. I don't vote for candidates I know nothing about. But no one can (or should be able to) stop me from doing so. I vote by secret ballot and I can take into the voting booth whatever bigotry, whatever self-interest, whatever ignorance, and whatever virtuous motives I want into the voting booth and, because I have franchise, I can vote however I want, even if I vote badly (in someone else's estimation). >>> "If Mamdani wins Tuesday night, it is only because of ranked-choice voting." Oh BOO-HOO-HOO!! So RCV might do something *different* than FPTP. Big fat hairy deeeeel. Like we adopt a reform that might actually make a change?? Like make it possible for people to meaningfully express their support for some fringe candidate that likely has little chance in winning. (And then surprize everyone what this fringe candidate wasn't so fringe to begin with, just not expected to win.) I think, Ralph, that they would make the same bitching about Condorcet RCV if that were the law instead of Hare. -- r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." . . .

Ralph, > What's interesting, however, is that their arguments would mostly not > apply to Condorcet methods. I didn't get that impression. > Voters believe they are choosing a leader. Instead, they're offering a > list of preferences to be reprocessed by a black-box system until > someone emerges victorious—even, potentially, a candidate who was no > one's legitimate first choice. Very very difficult for a candidate that is no one's first choice ("legitimate" or otherwise) to escape being eliminated in Hare, but it is perfectly possible for such a candidate to be the CW. This paragraph confuses me: > Imagine five candidates: A, B, C, D, and E. Suppose candidate D is > voter Johnny's first choice—he supports D by 90%, and his support for > B, his second choice, barely registers at 4%. Suppose that D ranks > last when all the votes are counted. According to the ranked-choice > rules, D is eliminated. What does "he supports D by 90%" mean? > In this system, voters rank up to five candidates in order of > preference. If no one wins a majority of first-choice votes, the > candidate with the fewest is eliminated. The votes from that > candidate's supporters are redistributed to their next choice. I gather from a link in the article that this is being used in an election with 11 candidates. In that case I am disturbed by the absurd artificial limit of 5 on the number of candidates the voter can rank. Australian style compulsory full strict ranking I find far less bad, especially with Hare. The GIGO problem could potentially be much worse with a Condorcet method. > This method may look elegant and straightforward in a textbook. But in > practice, it distorts voter intent and undermines the basic principle > of representative democracy. Which is what? And how does it do that? The article is just open anti-intellectual blather. -Chris Benham On 25/06/2025 6:34 am, Ralph Suter via Election-Methods wrote: > > Just today, the conservative online US news publication "tippinsights" > published an editorial that includes some of the key arguments > conservative opponents of ranked-choice voting (by which they > invariably mean IRV and never mention Condorcet or any other ranked > choice voting methods) have been using to oppose it. Their arguments > are not unreasonable, though also not especially persuasive. What's > interesting, however, is that their arguments would mostly not apply > to Condorcet methods. If Condorcet methods are ever used in major > elections or even prominently advocated, conservative opponents of IRV > might oppose them as much as they now oppose IRV (though maybe not -- > I'm not at all certain), but they would have to argue against them in > very different ways. The article, entitled "Regressive Ranked-Choice > Racket Redefines Democracy," is posted at: > > https://tippinsights.com/regressive-ranked-choice-racket-redefines-democracy/ > > I'd appreciate any comments or critiques anyone may want to post. > > -Ralph Suter > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info