<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>More than a "roadmap" or strategy is needed. As impressed as I am
with the arguments that RBJ, Better Choices for Democracy, and
others have made in support of Condorcet methods as opposed to
IRV, they aren't persuasive enough.</p>
<p>First, Condorcet advocates need to explain that the reason IRV
was adopted many years ago in Australia and elsewhere is because
it can easily be implemented with hand-counted ballots. Condorcet
methods would have been impractical until 20 or so years ago
(i.e., 5 or 10 years AFTER FairVote was formed), even for
elections with relatively few voters and candidates. The reason
they are practical now is because computerized voting machines and
scannable ballots (which can easily be audited with small amounts
of hand counting) have made them so.</p>
<p>Second, now that Condorcet methods can much more easily be
implemented, they have several important advantages over IRV:</p>
<p> - They are "precinct summable," which simply means that unlike
IRV, there's often no need to wait till all votes are counted
before an almost certain winner can be determined. It's rarely
necessary to wait days (sometimes even weeks) to be pretty certain
of the winner, as it sometimes is with IRV. This also addresses a
complaint commonly made by IRV opponents (mostly conservatives)
who have opposed IRV and even sponsored legislation in many states
to make IRV illegal.<br>
</p>
<p> - This advantage also makes Condorcet methods much more useful
for polling. It would be much easier to do accurate polling of
candidates in Condorcet elections than it is to poll for
candidates in IRV elections. Using Condorcet methods would also
make it possible to do accurate polling of three or more possible
policy options (e.g., three or more different proposed ways to
to improve on the current Electoral College system for electing US
presidents). In addition, Condorcet methods would make it possible
to have referendums with three or more options (e.g.: 1) elect
presidents by direct popular vote, 2) keep the electoral college
but reform it to end the spoiler problem and make elections fairer
for voters in all states, 3) have the House of Representatives
elect presidents and enable it to replace a president with a vote
of confidence, as was recently proposed by law professor Max
Stearns in his book "Parliamentary America"). Using IRV for
referendums would not be a good idea.<br>
</p>
<p>Third, better ways in addition to the above are needed to explain
Condorcet voting and its advantages over IRV. One long used
rhetorical device is to describe Condorcet methods (a term that
makes no intuitive sense to people who aren't familiar with the
history of voting methods) as forms of "Instant Round Robin
Voting" or IRRV and explaining that IRRV methods simply involve
examining ranked ballots to determine how each candidate in an
election would fare in one-to-one contests with each other
candidate, which is hard to do with hand counting but easy to do
with computerized voting machines or scannable ballots. Few if any
people would disagree that if one candidate would defeat every
other candidate in one to one contests, as would almost always be
the case, that candidate should be declared the winner. You can
then explain that in the rare instances where there isn't a
candidate who defeats all the others, there are usually persuasive
ways to decide which candidate is the most preferred overall and
should be declared the winner.</p>
<p>Better Choices for Democracy uses the term "consensus choice
voting" instead of IRRV to describe Condorcet methods. Only
experimentation with different terms and explanatory methods will
determine which terms and methods are most effective. Maybe there
are alternatives to both IRRV and consensus choice voting that
would be more effective than either.</p>
<p>If and when Condorcet advocates really get their act together, as
I hope they soon do (BCD is at best a good start), I think it's
very likely that they will decisively win out over IRV advocates
in the long run if not in the very near future. I don't mean that
as a put-down of IRV advocates. I agree with Michael Garman that
IRV is an improvement over plurality and that if "perfect"
Condorcet methods were unachievable, less than perfect IRV would
still be better than plurality and worth adopting for that reason
alone.</p>
<p>-Ralph Suter </p>
<p>Note: I'm copying this to the Better Choices for Democracy
address. If anyone from BCD reads this and would like to look at
other posts in this discussion thread, just visit:</p>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/">http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/</a>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.1.1750622466.3586519.election-methods-electorama.com@lists.electorama.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 18:43:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: robert bristow-johnson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@electorama.com</a>
Subject: Re: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:1895035084.613977.1750545811399@privateemail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><1895035084.613977.1750545811399@privateemail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On 06/21/2025 3:49 PM EDT Michael Garman <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"
moz-do-not-send="true"><michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">?If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">I, for one, don?t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">The "as correct as it can possibly be" is not perfect. I acknowledge the existence of Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox. Nothing is perfect.
But bad outcomes (such as thwarted majority causing unequal votes and spoiled election that harms voters for voting sincerely which then incentivizes tactical voting) due to unnecessary flaws are less correct than unavoidable bad outcomes. I, for one, believe in correcting unnecessary flaws.
These unnecessary flaws are a consequence of an RCV method based on the wrong principles, more precisely the lack of principles. IRV is procedure someone thought up (and Condorcet did 40-some years before Hare and rejected the idea because he knew what could happen) with intent to solve a problem, essentially the spoiler effect (or IIA) when there are three or more candidates. Hare proposes a method without really telling us what principle the method is based on. Or, perhaps, Hare thinks that IRV gives voters a second-choice vote if their favorite candidate cannot be elected. But that's not true. It never applies to the voters behind the loser in the final round. Most of the time that doesn't change the outcome of the election, but when it does, it's always bad; spoiled election and all the bad things that come outa that.
So IRV is a procedure without a principle. It just says "Count the highest-ranked votes for candidates that have not yet been defeated, then defeat the candidate with the least votes. Rinse and repeat." That's simple, but not a principle.
Condorcet says "When more voters rank A over B than than to the contrary, B is not elected." That's also simple. The procedure is derived from that principle. The thing that IRV apologists have to justify is why *should* B be elected? Why is it a good thing that B is elected? What principle or what public good is it?
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 18:45:00 -0400
From: Michael Garman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" moz-do-not-send="true"><michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>
To: robert bristow-johnson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@electorama.com</a>
Subject: Re: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:CANAGaDdct93zz3PaEghYfteu5as0AMpL5ANcCgPSrfT8-KwxPw@mail.gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><CANAGaDdct93zz3PaEghYfteu5as0AMpL5ANcCgPSrfT8-KwxPw@mail.gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
When you have a plan for a viable political movement for a Condorcet method
superior to IRV, I will cheer it on and help you build it.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 6:43?PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><election-methods@lists.electorama.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On 06/21/2025 3:49 PM EDT Michael Garman <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"
moz-do-not-send="true"><michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">If we're gonna "correct" First-Past-The-Post, let's make sure that the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">correction itself is as correct as it can possibly be
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">I, for one, don?t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">The "as correct as it can possibly be" is not perfect. I acknowledge the
existence of Arrow's theorem and of the Condorcet paradox. Nothing is
perfect.
But bad outcomes (such as thwarted majority causing unequal votes and
spoiled election that harms voters for voting sincerely which then
incentivizes tactical voting) due to unnecessary flaws are less correct
than unavoidable bad outcomes. I, for one, believe in correcting
unnecessary flaws.
These unnecessary flaws are a consequence of an RCV method based on the
wrong principles, more precisely the lack of principles. IRV is procedure
someone thought up (and Condorcet did 40-some years before Hare and
rejected the idea because he knew what could happen) with intent to solve a
problem, essentially the spoiler effect (or IIA) when there are three or
more candidates. Hare proposes a method without really telling us what
principle the method is based on. Or, perhaps, Hare thinks that IRV gives
voters a second-choice vote if their favorite candidate cannot be elected.
But that's not true. It never applies to the voters behind the loser in
the final round. Most of the time that doesn't change the outcome of the
election, but when it does, it's always bad; spoiled election and all the
bad things that come outa that.
So IRV is a procedure without a principle. It just says "Count the
highest-ranked votes for candidates that have not yet been defeated, then
defeat the candidate with the least votes. Rinse and repeat." That's
simple, but not a principle.
Condorcet says "When more voters rank A over B than than to the contrary,
B is not elected." That's also simple. The procedure is derived from that
principle. The thing that IRV apologists have to justify is why *should* B
be elected? Why is it a good thing that B is elected? What principle or
what public good is it?
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://electorama.com/em" moz-do-not-send="true">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list
info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250621/70821e6d/attachment-0001.htm"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250621/70821e6d/attachment-0001.htm></a>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 22:46:54 -0400
From: robert bristow-johnson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a>
To: Michael Garman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" moz-do-not-send="true"><michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@electorama.com</a>
Subject: Re: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:2v7c5t4dh4vj8p1bviqtkphh.1750560180228@email.lge.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><2v7c5t4dh4vj8p1bviqtkphh.1750560180228@email.lge.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Powered by Cricket Wireless------ Original message------From: Michael GarmanDate: Sat, Jun 21, 2025 18:45To: robert bristow-johnson;Cc: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com;Subject:Re"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@electorama.com;Subject:Re</a>: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy>When you have a plan for a viable political movement for a Condorcet method superior to IRV, I will cheer it on and help you build it.?Then connect with the Better Choices people.? ?Because, Michael, we're on the right side of history.? FairVote ans RankTheVote ain't quite.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250621/a430b1e2/attachment-0001.htm"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250621/a430b1e2/attachment-0001.htm></a>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 08:45:15 -0400
From: Michael Garman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" moz-do-not-send="true"><michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>
To: robert bristow-johnson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@electorama.com</a>
Subject: Re: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:CANAGaDc7BNr34GZUM2JEvGkSXAeNXh9ijkfCt1N=dMtP870Uaw@mail.gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><CANAGaDc7BNr34GZUM2JEvGkSXAeNXh9ijkfCt1N=dMtP870Uaw@mail.gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
That?s a bold claim to make about a group that as of now still appears to
have little more than some erudite supporters and a slick website. Show me
the roadmap, and I?ll get in the vehicle.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 10:46?PM robert bristow-johnson <
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" moz-do-not-send="true">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">*Powered by Cricket Wireless*
------ Original message------
*From: *Michael Garman
*Date: *Sat, Jun 21, 2025 18:45
*To: *robert bristow-johnson;
*Cc: *election-methods@electorama.com;
*Subject:*Re: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">When you have a plan for a viable political movement for a Condorcet
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">method superior to IRV, I will cheer it on and help you build it.
Then connect with th e Better Choices people. Because, Michael, we're on
the right side of history. FairVote ans RankTheVote ain't quite.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250622/dfca2018/attachment-0001.htm"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250622/dfca2018/attachment-0001.htm></a>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Election-Methods mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com</a>
------------------------------
End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 251, Issue 4
************************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>