[tunesmith]

KUDOS to you for respecting the Condorcet Winner.

After spending a notable portion of my life diving deeply into voting systems, their side effects, and the various poorly-thought-out arguments that people make, I basically only feel wincing pain when a lot of these projects come out. So I'm glad that the concept of the Condorcet Winner hasn't been forgotten.

The IRV zealots have basically won the messaging war, using what I believe to be unethical tactics. IRV is not the only way to count RCV, but they act like it is. But power is power, so until society suffers enough with lousy results, it's just going to be the FPTP pain all over again, dressed up in different clothing.

[ClayShentrup]

cordorcet methods are overly complicated and don't optimize the right thing. the goal is maximal social utility in the face of strategic behavior. cardinal methods are simpler and generally better at this.

https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/

[tunesmith]

> cordorcet methods are overly complicated

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33111997

> and don't optimize the right thing

Apparently "candidate that would beat all others head to head should win" isn't the right thing? You'll need to explain that.

> maximal social utility

Some folks define social utility as erring toward more passionate voters, which is a potential problem with all cardinal methods. If they don't elect the Condorcet Winner, they are fatally flawed for any election that purports to be democratic.