<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 gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ralph Suter <<a href="mailto:RLSuter@aol.com">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>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_-9012262444751503111m_-4643026393817267918yui_3_17_2_1_1750365927689_325"> </h4>
<div role="region" id="m_-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>