<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Valuable templates! </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's encouraging to me that the resolution of the case of no Condorcet candidate can be treated as one of the "additional regulations":</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It gives us hope that whatever Condorcet compliant method is first adopted is not set in stone ... no act of congress needed to change the "additional regulations"!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage -->
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> </div>
<div>Date: 7/9/21 7:15 PM (GMT-08:00) </div>
<div>To: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons@outlook.com>, Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@gmail.com>
</div>
<div>Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [EM] Teams </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
> On 07/09/2021 9:56 PM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons@outlook.com> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Daniel,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Let's take adavantage of Robert Bristow-Johnson's valuable experience when we approach the tricky business of writing and submitting legal language for a ballot initiative.<br>
> <br>
<br>
i may have posted this before. here is the IRV language i used as a template to start with:<br>
<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
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:<br>
(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.<br>
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent of all ballots) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.<br>
(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.<br>
(4) In each round, every ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with fewest votes is defeated in the current round.<br>
(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.<br>
(6) The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
here is how i modified it for BTR-STV:<br>
<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
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:<br>
(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.<br>
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent of all ballots) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.<br>
(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.<br>
(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.<br>
(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.<br>
(6) The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
and, when i was having a discussion with Eric Maskin, we wanted to compare language to what he called "ordinary Condorcet", it's just a speculative guess by me (but the problem is there is no resolution to a cycle):<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
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:<br>
(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
be allowed. Any candidate not marked with a preference shall be considered as ranked lower than every candidate marked with a preference.<br>
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent of all ballots) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.<br>
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, a Condorcet-compliant retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The candidate who is the Condorcet winner is elected, if the rankings on all of the ballots indicate that
this one candidate defeats, by a simple majority of voter preferences, all other candidates when compared in turn with each other individual candidate. A selected candidate defeats another candidate by a simple majority when the number of ballots ranking
the selected candidate higher than the other candidate exceeds the number of ballots marked to the contrary.<br>
(4) The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
I'm just thinking that the language may have to look something like that,<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com<br>
<br>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br>
<br>
.<br>
.<br>
.<br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>