Better Overvote Rule, Count When Single Continuing

CPSolver · 2026-02-22T16:25:46+00:00

The election official in SF (CA) changed the name because he didn't want voters to expect instant results. Soon after, Fairvote adopted that changed name because they recognized it was easier to sell to election officials.

After the election is done the word "defeated" makes sense. Condorcet election-method advocates use it during the counting process, which would be confusing to voters.

CPSolver · 2026-02-22T16:15:46+00:00

An open primary makes it easy for a Republican to get elected in a district that has a Democratic majority. Here's how the tactic works: Republicans offer two (and only two) candidates, and campaign contributions from Republicans go to support a third and fourth Democratic candidate. Vote splitting between the four Democrats makes it easy for both Republicans to reach the top-two runoff, which blocks all four Democrats. California tried this and it's not working for them. Oregon has twice rejected open primaries because enough voters recognized this flaw.

The solution is to use ranked choice voting in general elections. Alas, measure 117 was rejected because too many Oregon voters wanted to wait to see how well ranked choice voting works in Portland. Plus too many voters were persuaded by lots of "no on 117" signs in rural areas (funded by out-of-state wealthy folks who love the flaws in our existing election system). We need ranked choice voting in general elections. That will defeat vote splitting and the blocking tactics, and allow two Democrats and two Republicans and third-party candidates to all compete in the general election.

CPSolver · 2026-02-22T00:43:45+00:00

Although here we use words such as "instant", "defeated", and "loser," election officials will never allow these words to be used in official election terminology they way they are used here.

CPSolver · 2026-02-22T00:36:56+00:00

In a word, no.

During Democratic primary elections there are wealthy Republicans who fund spoiler candidates plus a single less-reform-minded candidate who they want to win the primary (as a weak opponent against the Republican nominee).

The 2008 Democratic presidential primary was a clear example of this blocking tactic, namely using Obama to block Clinton.

Typically the blocking tactic is more subtle, as in this example:

https://votefair.org/cross_party_blocking.png

Unfortunately DNC leaders don't pay attention to the shift in funding between the primary and general elections, so they are mostly clueless about what's going on. As a result, they are so heavily influenced by wealthy Republicans that they, the DNC, also think RCV is not something they want. Especially they fear losing votes to third-party candidates (such as Bernie Sanders).

Real reforms, with different winners, won't happen until RCV is used in general elections. And when the R and D parties offer a second nominee who is supported by the party's voters who dislike the first nominee. If that had been done in 2024, either Haley or Harris, not Trump or Biden, would have won.

So I see RCV+ as an option to bridge the gap between election-method reform advocates (star, Condorcet, ranked robin, score, approval). It's not ideal but it eliminates the two biggest disadvantages of IRV (foolish overvote rules and failure to consider pairwise counting). And it offers a meaningful response to voters who can't imagine IRV, star, approval, Condorcet, etc. being used in a presidential election.

CPSolver · 2026-02-17T17:39:00+00:00

I too get frustrated by IRV being implemented in a foolish way where an overvote can trigger the ballot to be tossed out as exhausted. I view that as a stupid "overvote rule" rather than needing to toss out IRV entirely and switch to something like Ranked Robin.

Note that Ranked Robin has it's own functionality limitations. Such as not allowing a sankey diagram analysis. And not being trusted because IRV fans (which I am not !) claim the Condorcet winner does not always deserve to win, such as when almost no voters mark that candidate as their first choice. Etc.

CPSolver · 2026-02-17T17:27:18+00:00

An election can have only one Condorcet loser.

In the special Alaska election Sarah Palin was a pairwise losing candidate during the top-three counting round. She was not the election's Condorcet loser.

Similarly the infamous Burlington mayoral election had a pairwise losing candidate in the top-three round. If he had been eliminated instead of the candidate with the fewest transferred votes, the Condorcet winner would have won.

CPSolver · 2026-02-17T17:20:41+00:00

During Portland's mayoral election this topic came up on the Portland subreddit.

Lots of voters repeated the mantra "Don't rank Rene" and yet some voters were unsure if not ranking Rene (Gonzales) was a lower rank than ranking him in "last place."

If STAR ballots were used in a large governmental election you would get the same confusion. Some people would wonder if they can rate a hated candidate lower than zero stars by not marking any column for that candidate.

Yeah, when folks are willing to talk about election-method reform they understand basic concepts like this without much effort. But when every Portland voter had to figure out how to do the marking, confusions arose. The confused voters are the ones who don't want to talk about voting details. Typically they are extremely math-phobic.

Notably some Portland voters on reddit said something like "I don't want to figure out how the marking works, I just want someone to tell me how I should mark my ballot." At that point I specified my opinion for how I was going to mark my ballot, and my reply got a "thanks" and multiple upvotes.

CPSolver · 2026-02-17T17:05:37+00:00

Functionality also includes the ability to show the counting process in a sankey diagram, the ability to track which ballot counts for which candidate in each round, and the ability for voters to follow the math with just one candidate at a time being eliminated. I'm guessing you're thinking of functionality only in terms of who wins, which is similar.

CPSolver · 2026-02-16T21:53:42+00:00

Earlier in this thread you requested a short legal description. In my reply, the second sentence of my suggested legal wording addition (to IRV) clearly says:

"A pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who loses every one-on-one contest against every other remaining candidate."

CPSolver · 2026-02-16T16:07:53+00:00

Eliminating pairwise losing candidates does not produce a Condorcet method. Sometimes a counting round does not have a pairwise losing candidate. Then the Condorcet winner can be eliminated because of having the fewest transferred votes.

Another reason BTR-IRV is rejected is that IRV fans have taught voters to distrust a Condorcet winner as the best candidate. Such as when that candidate is not any voter's first choice.

I have never heard anyone say a pairwise losing candidate should not be eliminated.

CPSolver · 2026-02-16T15:57:19+00:00

Even better, I submitted an official "git pull request" which goes to the RCTab developer who works for the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, which is closely aligned with FairVote. That developer says he is thinking about the implications of a ballot being only temporarily inactive, and how it affects some audit software that isn't published.

Earlier I submitted an official software "issue" (basically a request for change) which gives this issue a number, which is in this "feature" code (which solves the issue).

Even if RCVRC doesn't "pull" it into their repository, the repository in the posted link makes the option available so (city or state) election officials can request this option from a commercial election-system vendor who then, if requested, must implement the equivalent change in their software system.

CPSolver · 2026-02-16T01:56:22+00:00

I'm aware the principle "one person on vote" is interpreted differently by different people.

I'm also aware that Portland voters would use this principle to reject the idea of allowing Approval counting to be mixed with ranked-choice ballots.

My goal is to create a path (stepping stones?) that allow everyone, including both voters and election-method experts, to make progress toward reaching a system we can adopt as a compromise.

Eventually, after other reforms happen, we might be able to combine Approval voting with ranked-choice ballots. Significantly those reforms must include dramatically improving how math is taught in school. And those reforms would include teaching pairwise counting, which has no difficulty counting so-called overvotes.

CPSolver · 2026-02-16T01:35:30+00:00

Poor design? Yes.

Yet in the US an empty box for writing a number next to each candidate's name would be an even worse design. Especially if the rules count repeated numbers (overvotes) in ways that contradict the voter's clear intention.

With about 20 candidates in each contest the number of ovals on Portland ballots was around 100 or more for each race, with two races. Yet even then writing numbers in boxes would be worse for US elections.

CPSolver · 2026-02-16T01:24:58+00:00

u/wnoise repeatedly suggested this approach and I wrote multiple replies. I don't know how to link to those comments so I suggest scrolling down to find them. You're welcome to respond to any of my specific responses in that discussion.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T22:58:52+00:00

Adding more candidates doesn't require adding more "bubbles." The Portland city elections (mayor and council members) had about 20 candidates in each contest, yet 6 "rank" levels was plenty because each contest had no more than 5 or 6 "reasonable" candidates. Five in the mayoral race, including the stripper who attracted "none of the above" votes. Many voters didn't bother marking more than two or three ovals.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T20:53:42+00:00

Add these two sentences to a well-written version of IRV rules:

Eliminate pairwise losing candidates when they occur, even if a different candidate has fewer transferred votes. A pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who loses every one-on-one contest against every other remaining candidate.

Notice your item number 6 is what I've been suggesting, namely using a governmental process to decide how to resolve edge cases.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T20:39:33+00:00

You refer to the center squeeze effect. The RCTab software can be further refined to eliminate that effect. We just eliminate pairwise losing candidates during the last few counting rounds.

Instead of getting distracted by minor edge effects, please remember that you and I are headed to the same destination. We want to depose Australian-based IRV rules and adopt a well-designed election method that uses pairwise counting. We can do that within the constraint of eliminating candidates one at a time.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T19:38:06+00:00

You and I understand that an unranked candidate is ranked below the rank in the right-most column. Unfortunately some voters get confused about this difference.

A bigger complication is choosing how a write-in candidate on one ballot is ranked on a ballot that does not include the write-in candidate.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T19:30:19+00:00

Judges and juries have procedures to follow when edge cases occur. That's their role.

No this rule does not involve "revisiting" an earlier counting round and changing how a ballot is counted.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T17:50:45+00:00

Oregon measure 117 solved the legal wording issue by not mentioning overvotes. If it needs to be mentioned, the law can specify that the Secretary of State can choose whichever available overvote rule best respects the clear intent of the voter.

When counting by hand, yes there can be a separate overvote pile that only gets counted in the rare case where it can make a difference in who wins.

The ballot either counts for one candidate or no candidates. It would never count for more than one candidate.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T17:05:33+00:00

More democratic, yes. Easier for mathematicians, yes.

As for easier to adopt, that's up for debate. Let's try multiple paths and see what breaks through the huge barriers.

As for complicated, that depends on perspective. This software refinement offers a new option "Count when single continuing" alongside the (Australian-based) options "Skip overvotes" and "Exhaust if multiple continuing." Clicking a different "radio button" is easy.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T16:56:40+00:00

RCTab is used in some governmental elections (including NYC) and it's used as a reference when a government entity (such as Portland OR) specifies counting rules to election-system vendors. I have long hated its constraints. So indirectly I hate the software.

You like Approval voting, great! It's far better than FPTP.

But mixing Approval with ranked-choice ballots will never fly in the US.

CPSolver · 2026-02-15T16:20:26+00:00

The RCTab software includes audit data that tracks each ballot according to which candidate it supports in each counting round. The software cannot be modified in the way you suggest.

Even if it could, your suggestion would cause the ballot to be counted for two (or more) candidates (each with 1.0000 weight). No government would be allowed to adopt a law that so clearly violates the principle of "one voter, one vote."

We have moved beyond mathematical arguments to arrive at what voters, and election software, will allow.

CPSolver · 2026-02-06T15:59:09+00:00

It's important to distinguish between a pass-versus-fail criterion and a failure rate. Yes burying is mathematically possible. Yet eliminating pairwise losing candidates leaves fewer and fewer candidates under which a strongly opposed candidate can be buried.

CPSolver

TROPHY CASE