FairVote's Condorcet article, counted — the claim-check demos (BV2168/BV2169, live)¶
The tabulatable evidence behind Claim check — FairVote's "Why the Condorcet Criterion Is Less Important Than It Seems". The article argues the Condorcet criterion mostly just guarantees moderates; these two matched elections count its own hypothetical and a shifted-electorate companion, and the numbers say otherwise — while honestly preserving the article's one good point (pairwise order is blind to intensity; the score sum here disagrees with the pairwise majority).
Both are LIVE BetterVoting elections, each with two races on the same 100 voters — a STAR race and an RCV-IRV race — so the center squeeze is clickable, not just claimed:
BV agrees with LH in all four races (frozen exports beside the yamls: *_bv_export.json). BV2168: STAR → Moderate (pairwise 55/57, matching the LH matrix), RCV-IRV → Liberal (Moderate eliminated round one, final 51–49). BV2169: STAR and RCV-IRV → Liberal. Ballot multisets verified identical to the yaml blocs.
Read the reader-friendly pages (fairvote_condorcet_claims_pages/); the .yaml beside each is the tabulatable source.
| Page (read this) | What it shows | src |
|---|---|---|
| BV2168 — FairVote's own hypothetical (45/12/43) | the Moderate is the Condorcet winner by 55- and 57-voter majorities; the live RCV-IRV race eliminates them round one (center squeeze); the score sum narrowly says Liberal — the intensity nuance, shown honestly | .yaml |
| BV2169 — electorate shifts left, the pole IS the Condorcet winner | same cast, 56% now rank the strong Liberal first — a pole candidate is the Condorcet winner, refuting "centrist by nature, regardless of the preferences of the electorate"; STAR and the live IRV race agree | .yaml |
Concept hubs: Condorcet efficiency · center squeeze · up: method_comparisons — same ballots, different methods