<html><head>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">> <span style="font-size: medium;">The payoff is that RCIPE would not have failed in Burlington and Alaska!</span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">> That's huge.</span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Any Condorcet method would have that huge payoff. What "huge" benefit does RCIPE have that a simpler Condorcet method doesn't have?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Like Condorcet-Plurality or Condorcet-TTR?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Or MinMax?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div>I'm not sure it's agreed or wisely assumed that this poll is about the most preferable method for public, governmental election (where the stakes are high and voter
s have a partisan interest to maximize their own political interests), but I'm sorta assuming that.</div><div><br></div><div>Then when choosing a method to promote, the actual correctness and fairness of the method is paramount.</div><div><br></div><div>Then the *perception* of fairness of the method by the public and by policy makers is important. To satisfy that concern, the method needs to be clear and understandable to the public and to policy makers. This is necessary to get legislation passed.</div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Hare RCV may have a simpler procedure, the Single Transferable Vote, but it doesn't have a simple *principle* of ethic that it's actually faithful to. Its ethic is its procedure, the STV, essentially saying "This is the right thing to do since this is what we're doing and this is always we had done it.". But that's no justification. It's circular.</span></div><div><sp
an style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Condorcet is based primarily on the principle of "One-Person-One-Vote", that our votes must count equally. No enfranchised voter deserves to have their vote count less than some other enfranchised voter.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">But that means Majority Rule must apply (I don't mean the "majority criterion"). This means that, at the end of the day, if more voters prefer A to B, then B is not elected. If B is elected, then the fewer voters who preferred B had cast votes that were more effective than those larger number of voters preferring A.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">IRV is not committed to that simple ethic, whereas Condorcet is committed to it. This is essentially the Condorcet criterion.</span></div><div><span style="
font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">So then the secondary concern would be public perception as well as that of policy makers. These secondary concerns are the only concerns that differentiate Condorcet methods.</span><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"> It's about how to justify to people why the CW is the right choice to elect. And what rationale there exists for the rare event electing someone when the CW does not exist.</span></div></div>
</body></html>