<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Ralph,<br>
<br>
In the YouTube video Marcus linked to, only the "Instant Runoff
Resolution" is mentioned:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/tMVLU63Ws9A?t=201">https://youtu.be/tMVLU63Ws9A?t=201</a><br>
<br>
Presumably they will (or on the evidence of the video already
have) settle on a single resolution method for their public
proposal. Of the three they list I consider the "Instant Runoff
Resolution" to be the least bad.<br>
</p>
<p>The first (judging by what they call it, because that is the only
clue they give to exactly what they mean by "smallest") is
presumably Margins, which fails the Plurality criterion and has
especially egregious failures of Later-no-Help.<br>
<br>
The second is Copeland//Margins. We know that Copeland fails Clone
Independence and when there is no CW is usually indecisive.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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</blockquote>
<br>
Their criticism of "instant runoff" is essentially that it can
eliminate a "Consensus Choice" (aka CW). But since they way are
using it here that can't happen, that criticism is redundant.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.betterchoices.vote/faqs">https://www.betterchoices.vote/faqs</a><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/06/2025 6:42 am, Ralph Suter via
Election-Methods wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7446ec4f-ead3-4da8-ba91-8bb039543d8c@aol.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>You've oversimplified what they advocate. Their website says:</p>
<h4
class="
accordion-item__title-wrapper
" role="heading" aria-level="3"
id="yui_3_17_2_1_1750365927689_325"> </h4>
<div
class="accordion-item__dropdown accordion-item__dropdown--open"
role="region" id="dropdown-block-6bc80389f3e571e0ef76-5"
aria-labelledby="button-block-6bc80389f3e571e0ef76-5" style="">
<div
class="
accordion-item__description
"
style="
padding-top: 0px;
padding-bottom: 15px;
padding-left: 0px;
padding-right: 0px;
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 class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/19/2025 3:02 PM, <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.1.1750363341.2802922.election-methods-electorama.com@lists.electorama.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
<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>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
<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>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com</a>
You can reach the person managing the list at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:markus.schulze8@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><markus.schulze8@gmail.com></a>
To: <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>
Subject: [EM] Better Choices for Democracy
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:465e498b-a7f2-40e8-9083-3cd518c7729d@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.betterchoices.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVLU63Ws9A"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 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 1
************************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>