<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Downright curious how we skip over what is presented between our eyes!!!</div><div><br></div><div>I recommended paying more attention to <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 19px; ">Condorcet Internet Voting Service. Less than a dozen lines after reading my reference to CIVS below, Robert wished for exactly that!</span></div><div><br></div><div>0n Jul 7, 2011, at 9:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jul 7, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Ouch!<br></blockquote>i missed it.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">. As Kristofer just wrote, Condorcet is a much better method than IRV for what you are promising - Interesting that Condorcet offers (more than) the same voter ranking capabilities as IRV, but does much better counting.<br></blockquote><br>i think the major argument for Condorcet is that it is the most consistent with the binary election of any pair. isn't that sorta what Pareto efficiency is about?</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Can help that, while we find fault with IRV, voters can be learning via IRV how they would interface with Condorcet.<blockquote type="cite"><div><br>we all agree how an election between only two candidates should be evaluated given equal weight between voters (that is the true meaning of "One person, one vote" and i'm still appalled that this slogan was used by the IRV-repeal people). it should be no different if a third candidate is added unless that third candidate beats both A and B. there is no justification for why this third candidate should reverse the preference of the electorate regarding A and B. if it's Condorcet compliant and if there is a Condorcet winner, then the outcome is no different than it would be if the CW runs against any of the other candidates. the electorate, when asked and given equal weight to voters, say that they prefer this candidate over every other candidate.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">. CIVS offers, available now, what you seem to be trying. Recommend you study this description of CIVS and consider what it offers: <a href="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html">http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Dave Ketchum<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Sand W wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I hope everyone is interested in a new online survey site intended to prove how much better IRV-enabled surveys are than traditional "one choice" or approval surveys.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br>can you provide a ranked-choice survey that is Condorcet compliant rather than IRV?<br><br>if your survey page has the ranked ballot that IRV uses, you can evaluate the survey by different methods. why not give the users a choice? some might pick Borda (cough, cough).<br><br>hey, this would actually be useful information for academic study. make the tools available (like in the website that performs the surveys) and the choice of several election methods, including traditional vote-for-one/plurality, Approval, ranked-choice (whatever Condorcet, IRV, Borda, Bucklin), and Score voting. find out which ones are more preferred by users of the survey tools.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Actually, studying their preferences for others, by users of such tools, may be a bit much. We need to talk to average voters, and to the politicians that are willing to help the voters a bit, SO LONG AS it does not hurt themselves too much.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>just an idea.<br>--<br>r b-j <a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a></div></blockquote></div></body></html>