James G-A replying to Forest >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.
What exactly is your definition of consensus, in this context? >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. > Thank you! I'm glad to hear that. More comments on cardinal pairwise are most welcome... my best, James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info