Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The chairs did prepare to start the consensus call with an updated
> procedure. However, based on the last 24 hours feedback I think we will
> have to evaluate the latest feedback and determine what we see as the
> next step.

   This seems like a good time to expand on the "Condorcet" issue.

   Condorcet methods set out to solve a real issue. (There is a lot of
discussion available on the web about what other problems they cause
while doing so -- if you care about that, go look.)

   In most versions of "Instant Runoff" voting, one option can be
everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice -- and be
eliminated as a possible winner at the first round of transfers.

   That is a plausible problem here. :^(

   It's arguably possible that "no MTI" could be everybody's second
choice but nobody's first choice; and thus be eliminated.

   This is not necessarily a killer problem; but intelligent voters
would have to take that into account, and enough of them would have to
list no-MTI as their first choice with their actual first choice
listed second.

   (I am not asking for any particular change here: merely hoping to
help folks understand why several posters seem to be hung-up on using
Condorcet rules instead.)

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>