[EM] Better Choices for Democracy

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 06/24/2025 1:07 PM EDT Kristofer Munsterhjelm via Election-Methods <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> wrote:
> 
...
> then Condorcet//IRV would be there as the simplest augmentation to IRV 
> that makes it Condorcet, for those jurisdictions that already use or are 
> familiar with IRV.

I think the simplest augmentation to IRV that makes it Condorcet is BTR-IRV.  The augmentation is just the stuff in the [brackets] in step (4).  Take that out and you have Hare IRV.

_____________________________________________________________________________

All elections of [office] shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked-choice voting
without a separate runoff election. The presiding election officer shall implement a
ranked-choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
   (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of
preference. Lower ordinal preference shall be considered higher rank and the
candidate marked as first preference is considered ranked highest. Equal ranking of
candidates shall not be allowed. Any candidate not marked with a preference shall
be considered as ranked lower than every candidate marked with a preference.
   (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent of all marked ballots) of
first preferences, that candidate is elected.
   (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff
retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff
retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "continuing candidate" is
defined as a candidate that has not been defeated in any previous round. Initially,
no candidate is defeated and all candidates begin as continuing candidates.
   (4) In each round, every ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever
continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The [two candidates with the
fewest votes in a round, herein denoted as "A" and "B", shall contend in a runoff in
which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support shall be defeated in the
current round. If the number of ballots ranking A higher than B exceeds the
number of ballots ranking B higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is
defeated, and A continues to the following round. Likewise, if the number of
ballots ranking B higher than A exceeds the number of ballots ranking A higher
than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is defeated, and B continues to the
following round. In the case that the aforementioned measures of voter support of
A and B are tied, then the] candidate with fewest votes is defeated in the current
round.
   (5) The aforementioned instant runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate
each round, shall be repeated until only two candidates remain. The remaining
candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes is elected.
   (6) The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with
this subsection to implement these standards.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I used to sorta like this method since it was a Condorcet-consistent "single-method system" and is the least possible modification to Hare IRV.  But I have since become convinced from state legislators and the legislative counsel (these are the lawyers employed by the state legislature that assist legislators in writing law) that "the law should say what it means and mean what it says".  So we're doing a "two-method system"; straight-ahead Condorcet and a "completion method" to deal with the contingency that there is no Condorcet winner.  That is simple and straight-forward code and everyone can see, simply, what the intent of the law is and how it pans out in unusual situations.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.