[EM] National Popular Vote & Condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

Food for thought:

The "National Popular Vote" effort is a proper attempt to hear voters  
better in electing a President - votes from all states would get  
counted, unlike the present problem that, in many states, all of the  
states electoral votes will go to the known and expected winner of  
that state's voting - which, in turn, discourages candidates from  
being much concerned with trying to increase their vote count from  
such states.

But, how should the votes be counted when merging the votes from  
multiple states?  I suspect Plurality is expected because all states  
know how to do that.

How about Condorcet?  It lets voters express themselves more  
completely, but then we have to be concerned with some states not  
being prepared to do Condorcet electing.

I propose here that that is not a proper concern.  Condorcet, of  
course, counts, merging together votes:
      as in Plurality - and thus could count in votes from states  
offering only Plurality.
      as in Approval - assuming, as is proper, that such could be  
voted in real Condorcet.
      of what Condorcet offers.

Knowing what a voter votes in Plurality or Approval, the counters  
simply count what would have been counted for the voter if the voter  
had voted such in a Condorcet election.

This both allows merging together what different states may be  
prepared to offer, and gives them a path toward general use of  
Condorcet - a tolerable destination.

Admittedly this ignores such as Range and Borda - but gives voters  
better power than Plurality, while minimizing what new they could be  
asked to learn.

Note that Condorcet is more tolerant than most, of different sets of  
candidates being offered in different states.  Conceded that such is  
undesirable but, assuming Condorcet, voters can both vote what is  
generally agreed on as to expectable winners, and what odd may be  
added for their state.

Dave Ketchum