<html><head>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">></span><span style="font-size: medium;">IRV and other non-Condorcet ranked methods are just plain worse than Condorcet. These results are well-known and well-cited, and show there's no reason anyone should ever use RCV as anything but a Condorcet tiebreaker.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium;">1. I am a Condorcetist regarding single-winner Ranked-Choice elections. That is because with a single winner, there is no proportionality to be had. The only way to value our votes equally is to respect Majority Rule and that leads directly to Condorcet.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium;">2. But for multi-winner, then proportionality *is* a thing and I don't think there is a particularly good Condorcet-bad
ed multi-winner method. I had considered using repeated Condorcet RCV for each seat until all seats are filled, but that's really majoritarian, not about proportional representation.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Also, please don't concede the label "RCV" to FairVote. They appropriated that label circa 2012 when "IRV" was losing cachet after several repeals. Condorcet RCV is also Ranked-Choice Voting. It's not just IRV even though FairVote would have you believe that.</span></div></div>
</body></html>