@robla that's a fair point, thank you for your response. In terms of the two-stage aspect in the US, I feel it is more of a de facto party-driven apparatus on top of the actual formal system, in contrast to France for instance where the two stages are the formally recognized method. You're probably also right that ranking more than a handful of candidates is generally pretty unpleasant. In any case I could be wrong about the difficulty of the sell, which would be good.

Approval top-two primary seems like it might be a decent option for single winner, although I figure it doesn't satisfy clone independence, which is pretty unfortunate.
For the fixed approval threshold, you're suggesting that if no candidate obtains the threshold, then the top two proceed?

"...under such a system, they might hire large analytics teams to ensure that both parties advance a sea of clones to drown out the other parties." Yes, exactly.
I was also thinking if there is a threshold, 50% should be imposed, since that guarantees some weak level of majoritarianism which seems important and that ordinary approval can lack.

In terms of single-winner, I'm on board with 50% approval threshold followed by a final round approval. I think that's really simple and seems to solve many problems.
In principle, it even could let people be lazy and not even bother with the second round if they decide that their first approval ballot is satisfactory enough for them.

ADMIN REMINDER:
If your comments on a post changes topics substantively from the original post, please create your own post so we can stay on topic.

Clarifying questions about terminology are on topic, but this thread is about the Maine Supreme Court ruling so advocacy to change voting system's names is off topic here.

I think it's fine to have it here, but being a US-specific thing, I probably don't have much to say on it!

@poppeacock a Condorcet method is defined in terms of the notion of a “Condorcet winner”, which is a candidate that beats every other candidate in a majoritarian head-to-head match up, also called a “beats all” winner. There can be at most one Condorcet winner in an election; however, there are pathological cases when a Condorcet winner does not exist at all, caused by what are known as Condorcet cycles.

The classic example is three voters using rank ballots over three candidates:

V1: A>B>C
V2: B>C>A
V3: C>A>B

You can see that A>B 2:1, B>C 2:1, but C>A 2:1. So A>B>C>A is a Condorcet cycle, which is a generalized “rock-paper-scissors” situation. Whichever candidate you choose as the winner, there is some majority of the voters who would have preferred a different candidate. That’s the unfortunate thing that happens when a Condorcet winner doesn’t exist…

Regardless, a Condorcet method is any method that guarantees electing the Condorcet winner when one exists. Condorcet methods differ in how they reconcile choosing a winner when the Condorcet winner does not exist, I.e. in effect how they determine which majority group(s) to jilt.

So for example, if Ranked Robin doesn’t specify how it resolves when there is no Condorcet winner, then it’s really a blanket term for Condorcet methods in general. Or maybe it’s a label for a particular curated subset of Condorcet methods.

There are many Condorcet methods, including Ranked Pairs, Schulze’s method, Copeland’s method, Minimax, and Bottom-Two-Runoff (by Tideman).

I like Bottom-Two-Runoff because it’s efficient and also equivalent to a seemingly (but not actually) more robust system: https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/564/bottom-n-and-bottom-2-runoffs-are-equivalent

@jack-waugh I’m imagining the decisions could be automated by making assumptions about the group utility and computing the mixed strategy Nash equilibria of the game.

The deepest problem there is the utility function, since it would be an aggregate utility of some kind that we would have to presume emerged somehow from the individual utility functions of the voters that constitute the group.

All of that is definitely questionable, I don’t believe in utility functions, but I’m unsure how else to proceed in putting this kind of situation into an analytical framework.

@toby-pereira I see, it seems that the properties of maximal lotteries related to participation aren’t what I believed they were. Looking into this, I misunderstood the definition of an (x,y)-improvement, this is swapping the adjacent positions of x and y in a ballot that already exists in the election, not introducing a new ballot where x>y.

That’s unfortunate, but also makes sense.

@cse4129 no problem, that’s what forums are for! Your idea is good, it just happens it was already invented. It also does have some problems/failed properties, though (like any method).

For example, it isn’t Condorcet compliant or Condorcet loser compliant, and it fails participation. It doesn’t satisfy independence of clones either, and it fails various other binary criteria. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad method, but it means it can occasionally produce pathological results. It satisfies the majority winner and majority loser criterion, and later-no-help.

There’s a “mind map” I made some years ago of some of the best-known/characterized voting systems in terms of the binary criteria they satisfy and fail in that discussion above. Probably nowadays I would make a better one (I might at some point). I should have done something like PCA or a graph embedding, but I tried to make that map before I knew about those analysis methods.

@jack-waugh Oh, okay! Thanks for the shoutout! Here's a more stable link to use: https://electorama.com/discord .

@toby-pereira your interpretation is correct, and yes with an even number of voters and non-strict rankings, ties can occur and that can induce non-uniqueness. For example there may be two separate, disconnected Condorcet cycles of different sizes in the Smith set for instance. The proof of uniqueness in general is probably less straightforward than just the intuition, I haven’t dug into it.

With ties in other methods, the resolution of ties is typically standard because the set over which the ties occur is discrete—uniformly sample one from among the tied candidates. But for maximal lotteries, when non-uniqueness holds there is a continuum of admissible lotteries as you indicated. The analog of a uniform distribution in this case would be using Jeffrey’s prior, which is why I think that’s the “right” way to go.

But yes it ultimately doesn’t really matter how the maximal lottery used is chosen since they are all maximal, but that’s also kind of the issue, because a choice has to be made.

Hi @cfrank - as @Toby-Pereira mentioned, there is electowiki for consolidating ideas from over here. At this point, I'm already relying on some pretty substantial help from LLMs for the tools I use to put together the electorama news. The latest draft edition is here:

https://electowiki.org/wiki/ElectoramaNews/2026-January

The prose in the ElectoramaNews is pretty much all mine, but the code I've "written" to provide the summaries of each of the forums (like my summary of this forum) was mostly generated from a vibecoded script I run periodically. My hope is that I'll be able to provide a more-and-more sophisticated summary of the various forums every month, and maybe I can have my tools call the LLMs to provide the summaries of the discussions. Right now, the "summary" in many sections is basically just a link to every forum post or email or whatever.

Hopefully, by regularly publishing ElectoramaNews, we'll be able to drive some traffic over here to the Voting Theory forum.

Opps – Correction

I made a mistake in an earlier post on this thread:

I stated that in a BTR-Score election with a 3-way cycle, the highest seed in the cycle would have a 50% chance of winning, and the two lower seeds would each have a 25% chance of winning.

This is incorrect. The highest seed in the cycle would always win.

Consider this BTR-Score tournament with a 3-way cycle:

Candidate A is the highest seed in the cycle.
Candidate B is the 2nd highest seed in the cycle.
Candidate C is the 3rd highest seed in the cycle.

In every such election, B and C will face off in the tournament; the winner will then face A in the deciding contest.

In a 3-way cycle, each of the candidates wins one match and loses one match to the other two candidates. The winner of the B vs C contest uses its only win to prevail; therefore, that winner has no chance of defeating A.

2 Possibilities:
A > B > C > A - B beats C then B loses to A
C > B > A > C - C beats B then C loses to A

A BTR-Score election with a Condorcet winner rewards majority.

A BTR-Score without a Condorcet winner rewards utility.

It would be possible, but extremely weird, for a BTR-Score election to have a 3-way cycle that does not include the top seed, the candidate with the highest total score.

@cfrank I’m bringing this topic up again, because it seems necessary to consider the implications of how alternative systems at lower levels of government translate effects upward, especially when higher levels maintain a winner-take-all style.

For instance, in a presidential election, say we adopt maximal lotteries (Condorcet compliant) to generate social choice rankings per state. For this to translate nicely to the federal level and accommodate the electoral college, the natural extension seems to be another maximal lottery where voters are states casting ranked choice ballots with electoral college weightings.

I think this could be a viable system in principle, but the question is about how feasible the structural and institutional changes would be to make.

The same sort of question comes up with approval voting. Essentially, my worry is that without upper-level criteria met, lower-level changes, while still locally impactful and potentially inducing long run changes, would not translate effectively upward in the short term, and may even destabilize upper levels of government.

@cfrank I revisited this concept, and I'm quite sure now that participation will not hold even with careful adjustments to the method. Several simple counterexamples were discovered involving the generation of a top Condorcet cycle. C'est la vie.

@kaptain5 said in Professional Politicians skew towards altrusism? [study to read]:

In this study an interesting finding was that on average politicians we behaving altruistically (giving more to the other party than they would receive). On average over all sampled politicians were giving 49% of the prize to political opponents and giving 57% to in-group members. Compared to most other studies of the ultimatum game this is far above most people and very far above the rational expectation. The result is also remarkably consistent between countries. When the out-group and in-group results are combined this gives the result that the politicians surveyed are slightly altruistic in the game.
This one surprised me, I expected the politicians surveyed to be much more greedy.

I haven't properly read the paper but this bit is interesting, and I've been considering whether we should be surprised or not. Politicians certainly have a reputation for being greedy and corruptible. But a lot of people who go into politics probably do so for the right reasons - that they actually want to make things better for people and remove unfairness etc.

I think there is more corruption at the top, but this isn't most politicians. Plus I also think that higher-up politicians might still have some good principles, but these conflict with other things that get in the way of that - wanting to get in with the right people, make the right deals etc. So removed from politics, they still might make fair decisions. They just happen to be morally weak in certain ways.

If you have an allocation game dividing a budget, a pizza, etc... this game is zero-sum in the sense that a you getting a slice of pizza is a slice that isn't going to me.

If you are negotiating with an agent who you are unsure is altruistic, rational, or spiteful there is a strategic incentive to misrepresent as a spiteful agent. An altruistic agent gets less than their fair share and a spiteful agent gets more than the rational agent if they can credibly convince other agents they are spiteful. It is worth it to pay off a spiteful agent rather than provoke it.

So if you are trying to optimize for the social choice there's a big problem with spiteful agents. With limited information all agents are incentivized to misrepresent as spiteful and over-represent how much they care about minor concerns. And for making social choice with limited resources there is a genuine zero-sum nature to the problem. Rational agents operating in a zero-sum environment will behave spitefully (you having it is negatively correlated with me having it.)

So with that irrationality baked in, if we could magically find what the social choice was, with spiteful agents the social choice isn't very sociable. And spiteful agents should be common under resource constraints. This correlation between individual's utility functions will also heavily restrain the types of group choice sets which exist.