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