Topics created by wolftune

@wolftune IRV wasn’t largely in the public consciousness of the USA until groups like FairVote started promoting it in the 1990s. It took a decade for acknowledgment of the system to grow, and by then it had subsumed the name “ranked choice.” So it wasn’t as if people made a concerted effort to change the widely accepted name in that case. In fact, I would say more people try to reverse the name change, because it’s a presumptuous moniker that obscures other ranked choice systems.

Anyway, maybe there are examples. But I doubt whether they were efforts not in line with the mainstream or status quo.

@wolftune Oh I see, the link is just from someone's website not something you wrote up. Got it, sorry.

I guess where I had seen the description of a "simplified variant" was on the ElectoWiki site, at the bottom of the page. https://electowiki.org/wiki/Bottom-Two-Runoff_IRV

Simplified Variant
If you remove the redistribution step, leaving the candidates in the initial 1st choice sort order for the entire process, BTR-IRV becomes precinct summable. Vote counting only requires the 1st choice vote counts and the pairwise preference matrix from each precinct, not the complete ranking counts.

I think it's an interesting difference. Using your paper ballot example, this would mean putting the ballots into piles based on first choices only, and never redistributing them for the purposes of selecting the bottom two candidates in any round. This is what I understood from that write-up that is linked, as it does not mention any redistribution. It's "simpler" in the sense that you can skip the redistribution process at each step. It is also "simpler" in the compilation complexity sense, that it is precinct summable.

It raises an interesting question- if someone were to go to an IRV advocate and pitch them on a tweak, which variant to propose? BTR-IRV with distribution is closer to traditional IRV, so perhaps that is a reason to propose it, as it is more similar to traditional IRV. But on the other hand, BTR-IRV without distribution is simpler in some ways, which can be viewed as a virtue as well.

It's also worth thinking about how much the distinction matters in practice. Curious if anyone has thoughts on that.

@wolftune OK, that's fine. I don't disagree with your point. But I was clarifying in case your post was a response to my bit about the candidates that are the favourites of nobody, but obviously it wasn't.

But just to be clear anyway - when I was talking about not wanting to elect the favourite-of-nobody candidates, I wasn't referring to stopping the election of such candidates in principle. But we've discussed certain specific scenarios where we all seem to agree that electing the candidates that are the favourite of nobody isn't the best thing to do. And I was discussing ways to elect the candidates we would want to in this situation.

@Marylander Thanks for your reply. Yes, the theory of the criteria work just as you suggest. I'm also interested in feedback on the exact wording as well as on the ramifications of the policy and whether people want to advocate that we consider actually adjusting the policy itself (not just the wording).