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

[Daniel Carrera]

Perhaps. How does the IRV language deal with that? Also, I just realized I
shouldn't have used the word "win" in (3). The correct text should be

(3) If there is no such candidate, then the candidate with the most
first-choice votes is elected.


On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:21 AM Hahn, Paul <manynote at wustl.edu> wrote:

> Should (1) have something like “Unranked candidates are treated as being
> below all the ranked ones” appended?
>
> --pH
>
> On Sep 20, 2021, at 11:32 PM, Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:12 PM robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>> And, BTW, it is *not* my intent to synthesize language for Tideman RP or
>> any other Condorcet method other that just the basic generic method: "Elect
>> the candidate who doesn't lose to any other candidate when compared
>> directly with the other candidate."  I want to show legislators that
>> language as well as the BTR language and compare that to the Hare RCV
>> language that has already been placed before them.
>>
>>
> Alright. Here is my attempt to write the simplest possible Condorcet
> language in legalese. This here is 126 words, which is a fair bit shorter
> than the 169 words of the IRV template:
>
> ----------
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be
> by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff
> election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice
> voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>  (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
> order of preference.
>  (2) A candidate “A” is said to win against another candidate “B” if more
> voters rank “A” above “B” than rank “B” above “A”. If there is a candidate
> that wins against every other candidate, that candidate is elected.
>  (3) If there is no such candidate, then the candidate with the most
> first-choice votes wins.
>  (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
> this subsection to implement these standards.
> ----------
>
> I think anyone would agree that this is much simpler than the IRV
> language. Part (1) is lifted straight from the IRV language. Part (2) is
> the Condorcet rule in the simplest language I could think of and I think
> it's drastically simpler than IRV. You said you didn't want to synthesize
> any particular Condorcet method, but I felt I had to include a way to deal
> with cycles, so that's part (3). The rule I wrote is FPTP which isn't great
> but it's easy to understand and familiar.
>
> Basically, the method is "elect the Condorcet winner if there is one,
> otherwise do FPTP". That's the dumbest Condorcet method, but it *is* a
> Condorcet method. Let me know what you think. I can try to come up with
> another option for (3) if you want. Just try to give me an idea of where
> you want to strike the balance between simplicity vs having a good rule for
> resolving cycles.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Dr. Daniel Carrera
> Postdoctoral Research Associate
> Iowa State University
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>


-- 
Dr. Daniel Carrera
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Iowa State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210921/478041a4/attachment-0001.html>