[EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

[VoteFair]

On 12/3/2019 2:56 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 > ...  I would like to see language suggestions from others. ...

I'm jumping into the middle of this without having time to read about 
BTR-STV, so pardon my misunderstandings about what you are attempting.

I suggest considering terminology such as:

"If there is a candidate who is less popular than every one of the other 
candidates based on comparing each and every pair of candidates one pair 
at a time, eliminate that pairwise-losing candidate."

This approach eliminates the need to mention the concept of a Condorcet 
winner.

Also, this approach is not Condorcet compliant because it does not 
ALWAYS elect the Condorcet winner, so it cannot be criticized as "a 
Condorcet method."

Of course the key word is "if" because sometimes there will not be a 
pairwise loser.  Whenever there is not a pairwise loser, your existing 
words specify what to do.

Here's a description of a method that repeats this pairwise elimination 
process and uses an upside-down version of IRV to resolve 
rock-paper-scissors-like cycles:

   https://democracychronicles.org/instant-pairwise-elimination/

I've called it Instant Pairwise Elimination, but the name is not important.

It's the concept of "pairwise counting" that I think is important, and 
should be used in election counting methods.

Richard Fobes