<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 gmail_quote_container"><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">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)"><u></u>
<div>
<p>You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says:</p>
<h4 role="heading" aria-level="3" id="m_-4643026393817267918yui_3_17_2_1_1750365927689_325"> </h4>
<div role="region" id="m_-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>
<p></p>
<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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace"><markus.schulze8@gmail.com></a>
To: <a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>
Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID: <a href="mailto:465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace"><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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com</a>
<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">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>