[EM] The IRV-Disease has reached my town.

[Chris Benham]

I think voting reform activists in the US should welcome IRV and push to 
make sure that there are
no abominable "details" like restricted ranking or eliminating 
all-at-once all but the top two candidates.

Voters must be able to strictly rank from the top however many 
candidates they wish, and the eliminations
must be one-at-a-time.

In my judgement this is better than Approval  (or something 
strategically equivalent that uses ratings ballots
with more than 2 slots) because it doesn't have any annoying defection 
incentive and properly meets
"Mutual Relative Majority".

If  you are a fan of the Condorcet criterion, then I think it is fine to 
modify IRV by before each elimination
we check for a Condorcet winner (among the so far remaining candidates) 
and when we find one we stop
and declare that candidate the winner.

If you want something more simple then I think Condorcet//Approval is 
acceptable.

Voters simply rank the candidates they approve. Equal-ranking should 
preferably be allowed.
A candidate that pairwise beats all the others wins. If there is no such 
candidate then the most approved candidate
wins.

A bit better, but equivalent in 3-candidate elections and harder to 
explain, are Smith//Approval and (one of
my favourites) Max Covered Approval.

Chris Benham

On 4/03/2019 5:48 am, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> 	⸘Howdy‽
>
> 	The article is here:
>
> 	http://petaluma360.com/news/9331748-181/ranked-choice-voting-gains-traction
>
> 	You need not read it because it says nothing new.  I shall post again later today about a way to make the ranked-choice crowd happy with Score-Voting.
>
> 	¡Peace!
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com