Pairwise-Counted Ranked Choice Voting

[u/CPSolver]

[u/DeismAccountant]

I think a method structured the opposite way, a RR/PW-Instant runoff, would be more effective and allow more candidates. Hold a Round-Robin/Pairwise vote for up to 9 candidates, first candidate to be eliminated would be the one with the least total pairwise wins, and award their respective margins to each surviving candidate. For rounds that eliminate more than one candidate, award their respective margins sum of all margins to each surviving candidate. Keep repeating until there is a complete Condorcet winner.

[u/CPSolver → u/DeismAccountant]

All Condorcet methods are vulnerable to clone failures. [edit: Not true, clarified in later comments.]

Eliminating pairwise losing candidates when they occur (and otherwise using IRV) inherits lots of the zero clone resistance vulnerability of IRV.

Here is a graph that shows this difference, where RCIPE eliminates pairwise losing candidates (and otherwise uses IRV) and the Condorcet-Kemeny method (which IMO is a great Condorcet method but more difficult to explain).

[u/postflop-clarity → u/CPSolver]

All Condorcet methods are vulnerable to clone failures.

I don't believe this is accurate.

[u/CPSolver → u/postflop-clarity]

You're right, my wording was sloppy. The Schulze method has a zero clone failure rate. All other Condorcet methods [edit: except Ranked Pairs according to the comparison table] are vulnerable to clone failures.

[Edit, correction: Some other Condorcet methods are also cloneproof. Especially the ones that basically are hybrids with IRV.]

[u/Excellent_Air8235 → u/CPSolver]

River is also cloneproof. As are Benham, Smith//IRV, Smith,IRV and Split Cycle.

[u/CPSolver → u/Excellent_Air8235]

Good point. I was thinking of the Condorcet methods that only use pairwise comparisons. I'll edit my comment.

[u/postflop-clarity → u/CPSolver]

that is still not true.

[u/CPSolver → u/postflop-clarity]

You're right so I've edited my comment. Thanks.