[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

On 4/21/2024 4:33 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
 > What do you think of BTR-IRV in that respect? Or Borda-elimination?
 > Neither explicitly checks for a Condorcet winner.

Regarding BTR-IRV, yes it's simpler and fully Condorcet compliant.

However, some voters will distrust the idea that the Condorcet winner is 
being protected from elimination in spite of possibly repeatedly getting 
the fewest transferred votes.

I suspect that BTR-IRV inherits some odd characteristics from IRV, such 
as the ones that show up in a Yee diagram and what Star fans refer to as 
the center-squeeze effect.

Adding another layer on top of a flawed method doesn't make it better.

I think of RCIPE as being like a pyramid where the foundation layer is 
solid because pairwise losing candidates deserve to be eliminated 
(because they must not be allowed to win).  On top of that is the IRV 
layer, which is not as strong, but it's only invoked when a counting 
cycle does not include a pairwise losing candidate.

Regarding Borda-elimination, I distrust any method that's based on Borda 
counting because that method is vulnerable to strategic voting and, for 
fair results, requires only one mark in each row and only one mark in 
each column (on a paper ballot of the kind used here in the US).

As an alternative to Borda counting I prefer the counting method in 
Instant Pairwise Elimination:

https://electowiki.org/wiki/Instant_Pairwise_Elimination

"... If an elimination round has no pairwise-losing candidate, then the 
method eliminates the candidate with the largest pairwise opposition 
count, which is determined by counting on each ballot the number of 
not-yet-eliminated candidates who are ranked above that candidate, and 
adding those numbers across all the ballots. ..."

Specifically, using IPE, when a voter buries a disliked candidate, the 
counting is not affected by how deep that candidate is buried.

KM, thanks for your wise questions.

Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy


On 4/21/2024 4:33 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 2024-04-22 01:11, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>  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.
> 
> What do you think of BTR-IRV in that respect? Or Borda-elimination? 
> Neither explicitly checks for a Condorcet winner.
> 
> -km