[EM] Better Choices for Democracy

Michael Garman michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Thu Jun 19 15:56:23 PDT 2025 

Continue to be skeptical, excuse me. Apologies for the double message.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:

> 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/20250619/40ee8e8e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list