[EM] I could use some help with advocacy.

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 04/15/2021 12:29 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 15/04/2021 05.45, VoteFair wrote:
> > I looked at your proposed wording change and I like the fact that it's a
> > simple way to improve IRV.  (Anything helps.)
> > 
> > As I understand it, there's a pairwise comparison between the two
> > candidates who have the fewest transferred votes, and the loser in that
> > pair is eliminated.
> > 
> > Perhaps you should give it a name.  Perhaps one that begins with the
> > words "Ranked Choice ...".  But not Ranked Choice Including Pairwise
> > Elimination, aka RCIPE, because that's already in use.
> 
> It's called BTR-IRV in this post:
> https://election-methods.electorama.narkive.com/LKfc52OI/an-example-of-btr-stv#post4
> (Electowiki also has a page on it:
> https://electowiki.org/wiki/Bottom-Two-Runoff_IRV)
> 
> That's Bottom Two Runoff (but also "better").
> 
> The term "ranked choice voting" is too ambiguous for me to tell whether
> you could just move it right over and call the method BTR-RCV. To me,
> "ranked choice" sounds like just another way of saying "ranked", but of
> course, FairVote thinks differently.
> 
> -km

actually at the top of the thread it was called "BTR-STV".  I include a screenshot, but i dunno if the list will pass attachments. i considered BTR-RCV but i didn't like two "R"s.  i sent Rob LeGrand an email longer ago and i don't think he objected.

because FairVote has ditched "IRV" (because it lost cache) and dishonestly replaced it with the more general term "RCV", I want to associate "IRV" with **only** the Hare (or Ware) method.  Not with a reform that makes in Condorcet compliant.

I credit Hare more than Ware for this method that is in wide use today.  Hare's innovation is the Single Transferrable Vote which gave this method some legal meat on the bones.  Hare kept it generalized for multi-winner elections.  Ware's only contribution was "Hay, let's use this Hare method for single-winner elections."

Because of FairVote's appropriation of "RCV" for the Hare method that they are selling, I want to always differentiate the Hare method from all the other RCV methods (Borda, Bucklin, and the several Condorcet methods).

I believe "Hare RCV" is the best label I can toss in to make sure people know what I am talking about in relation to the now common term "RCV".

My personal favorite Condorcet method is not BTR-STV because it is still sequential rounds and does not allow equal ranking of candidates.  But as I said on this mailing list at least a couple times: **Some** Condorcet RCV is better than any non-Condorcet RCV.  Especially since I am already arguing about a corner case (when Hare RCV did not elect the Condorcet winner).  The difference between the Condorcet methods is the *corner* of the corner case.  Already FairVote is arguing that what happened in Burlington is likely to never happen again and happened only once out of something like 300 RCV elections.

But (with apologies to Markus) what is important is to get a decent Condorcet method into some simple and completely self-contained legal language understandable in the common tongue.  Somewhere on this list someone pointed out BTR-IRV to me (since I was not here in 2006, I only joined after the Burlington 2009 election and it was my current opponent, Terry Bouricius, that told me about this list in 2009).  BTW, he called this my "personal pet project" when he was describing the Charter Change question on the CCTV.  I can find a YouTube link if you're interested.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot 2021-04-15 133407.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43917 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210415/7354302d/attachment-0001.png>