[EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Ralph Suter
RLSuter at aol.com
Thu Jun 19 15:40:50 PDT 2025
I'm sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. I mean that as a
statement of objective fact, not a put-down. I have never ridiculed you
or other advocates of IRV and don't plan to start doing so. Criticism,
yes. Ridicule, no, which is what you've been doing. If you have some
serious criticisms of Better Choices for Democracy or anything on their
website, I would like to read them, and I promise to take them
seriously. But I can't take your half-baked knee-jerk one sentence put
downs at all seriously.
"Slick website"? Would you recommend a website that is much less "slick"
and therefore less appealing? Are you admitting (or worried) that maybe
their website is just as or nearly as appealing as Rank the Vote's?
"Appealing to credentials"? So Rank the Vote doesn't do the same? What
then is the point of all the well-credentialed people listed on Rank the
Vote's website? I'm wondering if maybe you're jealous that the
credentials of those on the Better Choices for Democracy website are
just as impressive.
The need for a "theory of change." Yes, of course. I'd bet serious money
that they have one and are working to improve it. The fact that they
don't describe it (yet) on a "theory of change" or "strategy" page
is hardly a serious criticism. Rank the Vote has spent years developing
a strategy and describing it on its web page. At least give other people
the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to do the same, and
maybe even develop a strategy more persuasive than Rank the Vote's,
given its dismally unsuccessful efforts to persuade voters to vote for
adopting IRV in the 2024 elections.
Of course, maybe Choices for Democracy will be even less successful.
We'll find out soon enough.
-Ralph
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:39 PM Michael Garman
> <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
> “Writing a few op-eds” isn’t much better. What’s the plan for
> building a grassroots movement?
>
> I’m not impressed by a slick website or a list of names. Appealing
> to credentials isn’t a theory of change, Ralph.
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter at aol.com> wrote:
>
> That's a pretty ridiculous put-down given that they're just
> getting started. I can't imagine, judging from the
> descriptions of the people on their staff, board of directors,
> and advisory board, that they're so stupid as to think that
> "tell your friends" is anything but the beginning of a much
> more sophisticated and well-planned long-term strategy. One
> way they're likely to promote their efforts is with op-ed
> articles in New York Times, Washington Post, and other major
> publications, as Rob Richie of FairVote and other IRV
> advocates have often done. My guess is that we'll begin seeing
> such articles very soon, maybe in the next week or two.
>
> -Ralph
>
> On 6/19/2025 4:17 PM, Michael Garman wrote:
>> It would be neat if they set out an actual theory of change
>> instead of just “tell your friends about our cool idea.”
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM Ralph Suter via
>> Election-Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> wrote:
>>
>> You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says:
>>
>>
>> "In almost all large-scale elections, the process of
>> comparing pairs of candidates will identify the Consensus
>> Choice, a single candidate who wins all their
>> head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely event that no
>> Consensus Choice exists, the ultimate winner can be
>> determined by one of the following resolution methods:
>>
>> "Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus
>> Choice, the candidate whose largest head-to-head loss is
>> smallest is declared the winner.
>>
>> "Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The
>> candidate with the most head-to-head wins is declared the
>> winner. In the event that multiple candidates tie for
>> most head-to-head wins, the tie is broken in favor of the
>> one whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest.
>>
>> "Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus
>> Choice, Instant Runoff Voting is used to determine the
>> winner."
>>
>> My biggest question is why they included instant runoff
>> as one of the resolution methods, especially because on
>> their FAQ page, they explain why it isn't a good method:
>>
>> "Instant Runoff Voting
>>
>> "Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank
>> candidates in order of preference. Initially, only
>> first-choice votes are counted. If no candidate has a
>> majority (>50%), the candidate with the fewest
>> first-choice votes is eliminated, and votes for that
>> candidate are transferred to the voters’ next-ranked
>> candidates. This process repeats until one candidate
>> receives a majority of the remaining votes.
>>
>> "Under Consensus Choice, voters rank candidates
>> similarly, but instead of using sequential elimination
>> rounds, we use rankings to directly compare each
>> candidate against every other candidate in head-to-head
>> matchups. The candidate who wins against every other
>> candidate individually is declared the winner.
>>
>> "Consensus Choice selects the candidate with the broadest
>> support across the entire electorate.
>>
>> "As a result, Consensus Choice discourages divisive
>> campaigning because winners must appeal broadly, not just
>> to a faction or a particular base of supporters.
>>
>> "Example:
>>
>> "IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a
>> majority. Candidate C is eliminated, and votes transfer
>> primarily to Candidate B, making B the winner—even if
>> Candidate D (already eliminated) could have beaten B
>> head-to-head.
>>
>> "Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most
>> pairwise wins against all others directly, immediately
>> making B the winner without needing multiple rounds of
>> eliminations.
>>
>> "Why it matters:
>>
>> "Because it eliminates candidates one at a time, Instant
>> Runoff may eliminate a candidate early who would have
>> broader appeal overall.
>>
>> "Consensus Choice encourages candidates to build broader
>> support among voters to reduce toxic polarization. Under
>> Instant Runoff Voting, the winning candidate only needs
>> to beat the last remaining competitor head-to-head, which
>> doesn't necessarily mean that the IRV winner has majority
>> support when compared to other candidates.
>>
>> "In short, IRV focuses on sequential elimination rounds,
>> while Consensus Choice evaluates comprehensive
>> head-to-head comparisons to select the candidate most
>> broadly supported by the electorate."
>>
>> -Ralph Suter
>>
>> On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM,
>> election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com wrote:
>>> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>>> election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>>
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:17:35 +0200
>>> From: Markus Schulze<markus.schulze8 at gmail.com> <mailto:markus.schulze8 at gmail.com>
>>> To:election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>>> Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
>>> Message-ID:<465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d at gmail.com> <mailto:465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d at gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Hallo,
>>>
>>> in May 2025, "Better Choices for Democracy", a new Condorcet
>>> advocacy group, has launched its website:
>>>
>>> https://www.betterchoices.vote
>>>
>>> This group consists of people like Nic Tideman, Eric Maskin,
>>> Charles T. Munger Jr. and James Green-Armytage.
>>>
>>> They promote a Condorcet method called "Consensus Choice
>>> Voting": If there is a Condorcet winner, that candidate
>>> is the winner of Consensus Choice Voting. Otherwise, the
>>> winner is determined by IRV. See:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A
>>>
>>> Interestingly, this Condorcet method doesn't even satisfy
>>> independence of clones.
>>>
>>> Let's say that candidate A is a Condorcet winner, but
>>> doesn't receive any first preferences. Consensus Choice
>>> Voting then selects candidate A.
>>>
>>> Now, let's say that candidate A is replaced by clones A1,A2,A3
>>> and that none of these clones is a Condorcet winner. Then, IRV
>>> kicks in and first eliminates A1, A2 and A3.
>>>
>>> Markus Schulze
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Election-Methods mailing list
>>> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
>>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 1
>>> ************************************************
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>> https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250619/7ba2b2c1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list