We should use a top-3 vote to decide on the name! But for what it's worth, I really like "Round Robin Voting", which you mentioned having used yourself in the past. I think it's a much more accessible term than "convergence voting", which would probably confuse the average voter.
Question: "Isn't it true though that it's also extremely rare that the instant-runoff vote winner and the Condorcet winner would be a different outcome? I mean we have this very real example here in Burlington Vermont from 2009 but that's the extreme outlier is it not?”
Maskin: "It depends what you mean by extreme outlier. Again, we have analyzed the data from Australia and actually in about six or seven percent of the cases there, the Condorcet winner and the ordinary ranked-choice vote winner were not the same. So, six or seven percent is not every day but it's not an extreme outlier either."
Is this result published anywhere in written form that I could cite?
I'd like to point out 6 or 7% isn't every day, but it's 24-31 races per election cycle. So 6 or 7% would imply IRV is getting about half of close elections wrong.
This is very interesting to read, thank you very much! In general, I'm very much a supporter of any new voting method that could improve on IRV.
With regards to naming, I think "Round-robin" or "Ranked-robin" are good names for the class of tournament solutions. I believe Equal Vote Coalition uses these terms. My suggestion is to find one good Condorcet method (probably one of the defeat-droppers like Schulze or Ranked Pairs) and label it "Majority-Choice Voting".
I do have some concerns about the top-3 primary, though. Choosing 3 candidates by SNTV sounds like it could get extremely chaotic and involve lots of vote-splitting. In France in 2002, SNTV would've eliminated the likely Condorcet winner (Bayrou) but not Le Pen. Besides that, plurality is well-known for having many different Myerson-Weber equilibria, which makes money especially important.
Besides that, 3 candidates seems like very little choice (I'm used to 3-4 candidates on my primary ballot in open races). It also means no "backup" if one drops out (like we saw in Alaska). Wouldn't it be better to have more candidates in the runoff?
We should use a top-3 vote to decide on the name! But for what it's worth, I really like "Round Robin Voting", which you mentioned having used yourself in the past. I think it's a much more accessible term than "convergence voting", which would probably confuse the average voter.
So your system is Minimax Condorcet?
Equal Vote Coalition is using the name "Ranked Robin" for the Copeland//Borda method: https://www.equal.vote/ranked_robin
"Convergence" is a good name. I've been using "Consensus" for the same concept, but it's a little bit vague.
Also, since Maskin hasn't replied to my emails, maybe you know the answer to this:
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1346&v=wQs0k0P1LYU:
Question: "Isn't it true though that it's also extremely rare that the instant-runoff vote winner and the Condorcet winner would be a different outcome? I mean we have this very real example here in Burlington Vermont from 2009 but that's the extreme outlier is it not?”
Maskin: "It depends what you mean by extreme outlier. Again, we have analyzed the data from Australia and actually in about six or seven percent of the cases there, the Condorcet winner and the ordinary ranked-choice vote winner were not the same. So, six or seven percent is not every day but it's not an extreme outlier either."
Is this result published anywhere in written form that I could cite?
I'd like to point out 6 or 7% isn't every day, but it's 24-31 races per election cycle. So 6 or 7% would imply IRV is getting about half of close elections wrong.
(Assuming 435 races, like in the US House. So, situations where IRV malfunctions would be more than enough to decide who wins the House.)
This is very interesting to read, thank you very much! In general, I'm very much a supporter of any new voting method that could improve on IRV.
With regards to naming, I think "Round-robin" or "Ranked-robin" are good names for the class of tournament solutions. I believe Equal Vote Coalition uses these terms. My suggestion is to find one good Condorcet method (probably one of the defeat-droppers like Schulze or Ranked Pairs) and label it "Majority-Choice Voting".
I do have some concerns about the top-3 primary, though. Choosing 3 candidates by SNTV sounds like it could get extremely chaotic and involve lots of vote-splitting. In France in 2002, SNTV would've eliminated the likely Condorcet winner (Bayrou) but not Le Pen. Besides that, plurality is well-known for having many different Myerson-Weber equilibria, which makes money especially important.
Besides that, 3 candidates seems like very little choice (I'm used to 3-4 candidates on my primary ballot in open races). It also means no "backup" if one drops out (like we saw in Alaska). Wouldn't it be better to have more candidates in the runoff?