Re: Maine RCV

--===============8905692756146818274==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011f9850650aa852b"

--00000000000011f9850650aa852b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good evening gentlemen,

This whole situation led me to think of how might someone dead-set on IRV
get around this, which would obviously be through runoff voting.

Which in turn made me think of runoff itself, and how it's an inefficient
way to parse a crowded field of candidates in round one. Once you get to
round two, there's no games left to play, and a contest between two parties
only is at least immune to on-the-day voter strategy.

Of course, if we let more candidates than two survive the first round, we
would suffer from potentially fewer failures on round 1, but potentially
more on round 2.

So, which is the optimal way to minimise the total strategizing across two
rounds?

Three candidates? However many top-voted collectively clear half the votes
cast? Any other ideas? Or is "top two" likely the best compromise anyway?

Regards,

Etjon

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026, 8:59=E2=80=AFpm Etjon Basha, <[email protected]> wr=
ote:

> Greetings gentleman,
>
> And thanks Rob,
>
> So, not even approval would pass? Nothing beyond plurality?
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2026, 6:08=E2=80=AFpm Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods, <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Interesting report by Sara Wolk on votingtheory.org:
>>
>> https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/606/rcv-found-unconstitutional-=
in-maine
>>
>> In short: the Maine legislature decided to expand RCV/IRV beyond federal
>> offices to state and local offices, but worried about both a governor's
>> veto, and/or an overturn from Maine's high court (the "SJC" or "Supreme
>> Judicial Court").  So, rather than sending it to the governor (whose vet=
o
>> could be for many reasons), they sent it to the SJC first.  The SJC said=
 "*The
>> Maine Constitution, construed as a whole, treats a 'vote' as a single
>> choice, tallied by a municipality*"  That not only has implications for
>> RCV, but many other systems too.  A brief explainer with direct links th=
e
>> SJC opinion and some key quotes from them is available on electowiki:
>> https://electowiki.org/wiki/Maine#2026_advisory_opinion
>>
>> The "*tallied by a municipality*" caveat is interesting, since it
>> implies precinct summability is important to the SJC.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Rob
>> p.s. my cursory investigation of this topic was in preparation for the
>> ElectoramaCall, which is happening in a few hours:
>> https://electowiki.org/wiki/ElectoramaCall
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>

--00000000000011f9850650aa852b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Good evening gentlemen,<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div d=
ir=3D"auto">This whole situation led me to think of how might someone dead-=
set on IRV get around this, which would obviously be through runoff voting.=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Which in turn made me t=
hink of runoff itself, and how it&#39;s an inefficient way to parse a crowd=
ed field of candidates in round one. Once you get to round two, there&#39;s=
 no games left to play, and a contest between two parties only is at least =
immune to on-the-day voter strategy.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"auto">Of course, if we let more candidates than two survive the firs=
t round, we would suffer from potentially fewer failures on round 1, but po=
tentially more on round 2.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">So, which is the optimal way to minimise the total strategizing across t=
wo rounds?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Three candida=
tes? However many top-voted collectively clear half the votes cast? Any oth=
er ideas? Or is &quot;top two&quot; likely the best compromise anyway?</div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Regards,</div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Etjon</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, 15=
 Apr 2026, 8:59=E2=80=AFpm Etjon Basha, &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:etjonbasha@gm=
ail.com">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">Greetings gentleman,<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto">And thanks Rob,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">So, not even approval would pass? Nothing beyond plurality?</div=
></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"=
>On Wed, 15 Apr 2026, 6:08=E2=80=AFpm Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods, &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank=
" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi folks,<div><br><=
/div><div>Interesting report by Sara Wolk on <a href=3D"http://votingtheory=
.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">votingtheory.org</a>:=
</div><div><a href=3D"https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/606/rcv-foun=
d-unconstitutional-in-maine" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank=
">https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/606/rcv-found-unconstitutional-i=
n-maine</a></div><div><br></div><div>In short: the Maine legislature decide=
d to expand RCV/IRV beyond federal offices to state and local offices, but =
worried about both a governor&#39;s veto, and/or an overturn from Maine&#39=
;s high court (the &quot;SJC&quot; or &quot;Supreme Judicial Court&quot;).=
=C2=A0 So, rather than sending it to the governor (whose veto could be for =
many reasons), they sent it to the SJC first.=C2=A0 The SJC said &quot;<i>T=
he Maine Constitution, construed as a whole, treats a &#39;vote&#39; as a s=
ingle choice, tallied by a municipality</i>&quot;=C2=A0 That not only has i=
mplications for RCV, but many other systems too.=C2=A0 A brief explainer wi=
th direct links the SJC opinion and some key quotes from them is available=
=C2=A0on electowiki:</div><div><a href=3D"https://electowiki.org/wiki/Maine=
#2026_advisory_opinion" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">htt=
ps://electowiki.org/wiki/Maine#2026_advisory_opinion</a></div><div><br></di=
v><div>The &quot;<i>tallied by a municipality</i>&quot; caveat is interesti=
ng, since it implies precinct summability is important to the SJC.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Thoughts?</div><div>Rob</div><div>p.s. my cursory investig=
ation of this topic was in preparation for the ElectoramaCall, which is hap=
pening in a few hours:</div><div><a href=3D"https://electowiki.org/wiki/Ele=
ctoramaCall" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://electo=
wiki.org/wiki/ElectoramaCall</a></div></div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href=3D"https://electorama.com/em" r=
el=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://electoram=
a.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000011f9850650aa852b--

--===============8905692756146818274==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

--===============8905692756146818274==--