[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots

[Kevin Venzke]

Hello,

Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods at votefair.org> a écrit :
> Condorcet methods require explaining pairwise comparisons between every
> candidate and every other candidate.  That's a significant disadvantage
> for voter education.  And voter understanding.  And voter trust.
> 
> In contrast, I have never heard anyone claim that a pairwise losing
> candidate doesn't deserve to be eliminated.
> 
> Regarding the simplicity advantage, the RCIPE (Ranked Choice Including
> Pairwise Elimination) method only needs two simple sentences added to a
> well-written IRV law:

>From a marketability standpoint I kind of like RCIPE. If your audience
understands IRV then they probably can understand the concept of a candidacy
that has become futile during the count, who can be foretold to be a loser
well in advance of the end.

To me it is not that the pairwise losing candidate "deserves to be
eliminated" but that within the logic of IRV it's intuitive that that
candidate shouldn't need to play a role, affecting things, if they're doomed
to lose. (Or perhaps it's just me who thinks that's intuitive.)

In contrast the "beats all" winner concept would be a bridge too far,
because while there might be a candidate who can win every final pairing,
IRV imposes additional requirements to get to that point, so nothing is
assured about that status.

But if the audience doesn't know IRV then it would be harder for me to find
an argument for RCIPE.

Kevin
votingmethods.net