<div dir="auto">Continue to be skeptical, excuse me. Apologies for the double message. </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div><div dir="auto">Rank the Vote came out of the gate with a tangible strategy and playbook for grassroots voter education, endorsement seeking, and fundraising. You don’t have to like the organization or its cause, but you can’t deny that it has a plan in place and that it’s achieved results — winning dozens of campaigns and recruiting hundreds of thousands of supporters across the country. If the organization had popped up with a website, a few prominent backers, and little else, I’d have dismissed it as similarly misguided. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think this group is pushing a neat idea. I’d like to see it succeed. But I’m not seeing any evidence that it’s equipped to do so, and until that changes I’ll continue to do so. </div></div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:40 PM Ralph Suter <<a href="mailto:RLSuter@aol.com" target="_blank">RLSuter@aol.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><u></u>
<div>
<p>I'm sorry, but your comments are just ridiculous. I mean that as
a statement of objective fact, not a put-down. I have never
ridiculed you or other advocates of IRV and don't plan to start
doing so. Criticism, yes. Ridicule, no, which is what you've been
doing. If you have some serious criticisms of Better Choices for
Democracy or anything on their website, I would like to read them,
and I promise to take them seriously. But I can't take your
half-baked knee-jerk one sentence put downs at all seriously.<br>
</p>
<p>"Slick website"? Would you recommend a website that is much less
"slick" and therefore less appealing? Are you admitting (or
worried) that maybe their website is just as or nearly as
appealing as Rank the Vote's?</p>
<p>"Appealing to credentials"? So Rank the Vote doesn't do the same?
What then is the point of all the well-credentialed people listed
on Rank the Vote's website? I'm wondering if maybe you're jealous
that the credentials of those on the Better Choices for Democracy
website are just as impressive.</p>
<p>The need for a "theory of change." Yes, of course. I'd bet
serious money that they have one and are working to improve it.
The fact that they don't describe it (yet) on a "theory of change"
or "strategy" page is hardly a serious criticism. Rank the
Vote has spent years developing a strategy and describing it on
its web page. At least give other people the benefit of the doubt
regarding their ability to do the same, and maybe even develop a
strategy more persuasive than Rank the Vote's, given its dismally
unsuccessful efforts to persuade voters to vote for adopting IRV
in the 2024 elections.</p>
<p>Of course, maybe Choices for Democracy will be even less
successful. We'll find out soon enough.</p></div><div>
<p>-Ralph<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at
5:39 PM Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto">“Writing a few op-eds” isn’t much better.
What’s the plan for building a grassroots movement?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’m not impressed by a slick website or a
list of names. Appealing to credentials isn’t a theory of
change, Ralph. </div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 19, 2025
at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <<a href="mailto:RLSuter@aol.com" target="_blank">RLSuter@aol.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>That's a pretty ridiculous put-down given that
they're just getting started. I can't imagine,
judging from the descriptions of the people on
their staff, board of directors, and advisory
board, that they're so stupid as to think that
"tell your friends" is anything but the beginning
of a much more sophisticated and well-planned
long-term strategy. One way they're likely to
promote their efforts is with op-ed articles in
New York Times, Washington Post, and other major
publications, as Rob Richie of FairVote and other
IRV advocates have often done. My guess is that
we'll begin seeing such articles very soon, maybe
in the next week or two.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>-Ralph<br>
</p>
<div>On 6/19/2025 4:17 PM, Michael Garman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">It would be neat if they set out
an actual theory of change instead of just “tell
your friends about our cool idea.”</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun
19, 2025 at 5:13 PM Ralph Suter via
Election-Methods <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>You've oversimplified what they
advocate. Their website says:</p>
<h4 role="heading" aria-level="3" id="m_3014922182972588192m_6478993610703649801m_-2630627518796085355m_6478911848779492780m_-9012262444751503111m_-4643026393817267918yui_3_17_2_1_1750365927689_325">
</h4>
<div role="region" id="m_3014922182972588192m_6478993610703649801m_-2630627518796085355m_6478911848779492780m_-9012262444751503111m_-4643026393817267918dropdown-block-6bc80389f3e571e0ef76-5" aria-labelledby="button-block-6bc80389f3e571e0ef76-5">
<div style="padding:0px 0px 15px;min-width:85%;max-width:300px">"In almost
all large-scale elections, the process
of comparing pairs of candidates will
identify the Consensus Choice, a
single candidate who wins all their
head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely
event that no Consensus Choice exists,
the ultimate winner can be determined
by one of the following resolution
methods:<br>
<br>
"Margin of Loss Resolution: If
there is no Consensus Choice, the
candidate whose largest head-to-head
loss is smallest is declared the
winner.<br>
<br>
"Number of Wins & Margin of
Loss Resolution: The candidate with
the most head-to-head wins is declared
the winner. In the event that multiple
candidates tie for most head-to-head
wins, the tie is broken in favor of
the one whose largest head-to-head
loss is smallest.<br>
<br>
"Instant Runoff Resolution: If
there is no Consensus Choice, Instant
Runoff Voting is used to determine the
winner."<br>
<p>My biggest question is why they
included instant runoff as one of
the resolution methods, especially
because on their FAQ page, they
explain why it isn't a good method:<br>
</p>
<p>"Instant Runoff Voting<br>
<br>
"Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV),
voters rank candidates in order of
preference. Initially, only
first-choice votes are counted. If
no candidate has a majority
(>50%), the candidate with the
fewest first-choice votes is
eliminated, and votes for that
candidate are transferred to the
voters’ next-ranked candidates. This
process repeats until one candidate
receives a majority of the remaining
votes.<br>
<br>
"Under Consensus Choice, voters rank
candidates similarly, but instead of
using sequential elimination rounds,
we use rankings to directly compare
each candidate against every other
candidate in head-to-head matchups.
The candidate who wins against every
other candidate individually is
declared the winner.<br>
<br>
"Consensus Choice selects the
candidate with the broadest support
across the entire electorate.<br>
<br>
"As a result, Consensus Choice
discourages divisive campaigning
because winners must appeal broadly,
not just to a faction or a
particular base of supporters.<br>
<br>
"Example:<br>
<br>
"IRV: Candidate A initially
leads but doesn't have a majority.
Candidate C is eliminated, and votes
transfer primarily to Candidate B,
making B the winner—even if
Candidate D (already eliminated)
could have beaten B head-to-head.<br>
<br>
"Consensus Choice: Candidate B
might have the most pairwise wins
against all others directly,
immediately making B the winner
without needing multiple rounds of
eliminations.<br>
<br>
"Why it matters: <br>
<br>
"Because it eliminates candidates
one at a time, Instant Runoff may
eliminate a candidate early who
would have broader appeal overall.<br>
<br>
"Consensus Choice encourages
candidates to build broader support
among voters to reduce toxic
polarization. Under Instant Runoff
Voting, the winning candidate only
needs to beat the last remaining
competitor head-to-head, which
doesn't necessarily mean that the
IRV winner has majority support when
compared to other candidates.<br>
<br>
"In short, IRV focuses on sequential
elimination rounds, while Consensus
Choice evaluates comprehensive
head-to-head comparisons to select
the candidate most broadly supported
by the electorate."</p>
<p>-Ralph Suter<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM, <a href="mailto:election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="font-family:monospace">Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com</a>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
<a href="mailto:election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com</a>
You can reach the person managing the list at
<a href="mailto:election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com</a>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Better Choices for Democracy (Markus Schulze)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:17:35 +0200
From: Markus Schulze <a href="mailto:markus.schulze8@gmail.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank"><markus.schulze8@gmail.com></a>
To: <a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>
Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID: <a href="mailto:465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank"><465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hallo,
in May 2025, "Better Choices for Democracy", a new Condorcet
advocacy group, has launched its website:
<a href="https://www.betterchoices.vote" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">https://www.betterchoices.vote</a>
This group consists of people like Nic Tideman, Eric Maskin,
Charles T. Munger Jr. and James Green-Armytage.
They promote a Condorcet method called "Consensus Choice
Voting": If there is a Condorcet winner, that candidate
is the winner of Consensus Choice Voting. Otherwise, the
winner is determined by IRV. See:
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A</a>
Interestingly, this Condorcet method doesn't even satisfy
independence of clones.
Let's say that candidate A is a Condorcet winner, but
doesn't receive any first preferences. Consensus Choice
Voting then selects candidate A.
Now, let's say that candidate A is replaced by clones A1,A2,A3
and that none of these clones is a Condorcet winner. Then, IRV
kicks in and first eliminates A1, A2 and A3.
Markus Schulze
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Election-Methods mailing list
<a href="mailto:Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com</a>
<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com</a>
------------------------------
End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 1
************************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>