[EM] Can anyone help with straight-ahead Condorcet language?

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Wed Sep 1 03:13:52 PDT 2021

On 9/1/21 6:44 AM, Forest Simmons wrote:
> The version of point (3) that you are not satisfied with:
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, a 
> Condorcet-consistent retabulation shall be performed by the presiding 
> election officer.  The candidate, who is the Condorcet winner, is 
> elected if the rankings on all of the ballots indicate that this one 
> candidate defeats, by a simple majority of voter preferences, all other 
> candidates when compared in turn with each other individual candidate.  
> A selected candidate defeats another candidate by a simple majority when 
> the number of ballots marked ranking the selected candidate higher than 
> the other candidate exceeds the number of ballots marked to the contrary.
> My suggestion:
> (3) If it is determined that no single candidate is ranked ahead of 
> every other candidate on more than half of the valid ballots, then 
> pairwise tallies of head-to-head comparisons of candidates will be 
> examined to verify the existence (or lack thereof) of a candidate who is 
> ranked ahead of any other individual candidate on more ballots than not, 
> i.e. on more than half of the ballots where one of them is ranked ahead 
> (above) the other. If such a pairwise (head-to-head) beats-,all 
> candidate exists, then it shall be elected.

If we can define terms, then perhaps something like this would be shorter?

- A candidate is considered to be the victor of a head-to-head against 
another candidate if the first candidate is ranked ahead of the second 
candidate on more than half of the ballots.
- If a candidate is determined to be a victor in every head-to-head 
against another candidate, that candidate shall be elected.
- Otherwise, [fallback method here].

I don't know if legislative language allows for intermediate definitions 
like that, though.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list