[EM] Better Choices for Democracy

Thu Jun 19 15:56:02 PDT 2025

Rank the Vote came out of the gate with a tangible strategy and playbook
for grassroots voter education, endorsement seeking, and fundraising. You
don’t have to like the organization or its cause, but you can’t deny that
it has a plan in place and that it’s achieved results — winning dozens of
campaigns and recruiting hundreds of thousands of supporters across the
country. If the organization had popped up with a website, a few prominent
backers, and little else, I’d have dismissed it as similarly misguided.

I think this group is pushing a neat idea. I’d like to see it succeed. But
I’m not seeing any evidence that it’s equipped to do so, and until that
changes I’ll continue to do so.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:40 PM Ralph Suter <RLSuter at aol.com> wrote:

> 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> <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> <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 listElection-Methods at lists.electorama.comhttp://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/20250619/45317499/attachment.htm>