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

robert bristow-johnson rbj at audioimagination.com
Mon Sep 6 22:42:22 PDT 2021

Oh, but I am not looking for the Condorcet loser and, with this straight-ahead Condorcet language, I don't want sequential rounds (but simultaneous runoffs).  If I was doing sequential rounds, then I think Bottom Two Runoff is the simplest language for a Condorcet method.

But for straight-ahead Condorcet I want it to satisfy the simple rule: "If the number of ballots marked ranking Candidate A higher than Candidate B exceeds the number of ballots marked to the contrary, then Candidate B is not elected."

What language is complete yet simpler and clearer and more concise than:

"The candidate, who is the Condorcet winner, is elected if the rankings on all of the ballots indicate that this one candidate defeats, by simple majorities 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."

Assuming a CW exists, I want language that is better (simpler, more concise) than that to identify the CW.  Perhaps I gotta get more procedural about this:

"Given the number of candidates as N, including combined write-in, then the number of possible candidate pairings is N(N-1)/2.  For each pairing of candidates, the defeated candidate is whom that the number of ballots marked ranking the other candidate higher than the defeated candidate exceeds the number of ballots marked to the contrary.  The candidate, who is the Condorcet winner, is whom that is not shown as defeated in any pairing is elected."

Is that better?  I just don't know.  Maybe this BTR-IRV thing is the most concise language to get for a Condorcet method.  I'm just fishing around for good, concise, yet complete language that is plausible or credible for legislation.  Not that I am all that sanguine about the Vermont legislators will buy it, but I thought maybe I would try.

I dunno.


r b-j

> On 09/07/2021 12:39 AM Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:
> Robert, here's a way to describe pairwise counts in a non-academic way, 
> although here it identifies the Condorcet loser rather than the 
> Condorcet winner. It comes from the ballot initiative at: 
> https://www.rankedchoiceoregon.org/ballot_initiative.html
> "(3) If there is a continuing candidate who would lose every pairwise 
> comparison against each of the other continuing candidates then this 
> candidate is identified as a “pairwise losing candidate” and this 
> candidate is eliminated as the least-popular candidate. Not every 
> elimination round has a pairwise losing candidate."
> "(4) “Pairwise comparison” means a one-on-one comparison between any two 
> candidates that counts how many ballots indicate a preference for one of 
> the two candidates over the other candidate and how many ballots have 
> the opposite preference. The candidate with the larger pairwise count is 
> the winner in this pair and the candidate with the smaller pairwise 
> count is the loser in this pair. If both pairwise counts are the same 
> then neither candidate wins and neither candidate loses this pairwise 
> comparison."
> In haste,
> Richard Fobes


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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list