[EM] Teams

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 07/10/2021 1:27 AM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Valuable templates!
> 
> 
> It's encouraging to me that the resolution of the case of no Condorcet candidate can be treated as one of the "additional regulations":
> 
> 
> "The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards."
> 
> 
> It gives us hope that whatever Condorcet compliant method is first adopted is not set in stone ... no act of congress needed to change the "additional regulations"!
> 

I don't think that was the intention since it was simply copied from the IRV template that I got from the RCV 
resolution our city of Burlington had passed in the city election but is not yet adopted by the state legislature.

I think the intent was that the City Council (who was that "governing jurisdiction") could get specific software to implement RCV.

The ordinary Condorcet language on the bottom is not really complete.  It really does need to be spelled out in advance exactly what is the election procedure and that will define which Condorcet method.  But for 99.9% of the cases, that basic Condorcet language would suffice.  But if there is no Condorcet Winner, the law still needs to be able to elect someone with unambiguous rules.  I don't think that the City Council could change that by fiat.

bestest,

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.