On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, James Green-Armytage wrote:
James G-A replying to Forest Simmons, about fundamental Condorcet vs. approval issues
James opined that the winner should always come from the Smith set because otherwise majority rule is violated more than necessary. However, it seems to me that majority is just one form of consensus. Max approval is another form.
Majority rule methods don't aim for consensus. They are used when consensus is considered impossible/impractical.
I should have made it more clear that I wasn't talking exclusively about 100% consensus, though that is the (usually impossible) democratic ideal.
But the greater the consensus, the better.
If no significant consensus is possible, then (as Jobst argued) the best we can do is give the strongest contenders a chance at winning.
I think of approval and Condorcet as probes for measuring the amount of consensus. Each measures in a different way.
Respecting one and ignoring the other is a way of losing valuable information.
The question is how to best integrate the information from the two probes.
I think Cardinal Pairwise is a great step in the right direction.
Forest ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
