> Rob Brown: > > Paul Kislanko <kislanko <at> airmail.net> writes: > > > That's my reason to distrust them. What is "beuatiful" about > > getting my vote wrong? > > You have not supported your argument that they "get your vote wrong". > They selectively throw away data, yes. Tell me an election method > that converts many, many ballots into a single winner that doesn't > throw away data along the way.
I don't have to support my argument, since I am asking for those who claim Condorcet methods are "better" to support the claim that those methods are "like" Nx(N-1)/2 different elections. They are not, unless I get to make Nx(N-1)/2 choices, which I don't get to do. The burden of proof is not upon me. I distrust all Condorcet methods, unless and until someone has a good reason to like one of them other than "I like it, so you should, too!" > > You continue to ignore this point. Converting lots of data into a > tiny amount of data means discarding data, any way you slice it. No, I ignore nothing. I only continue to be attacked for pointing out that the emporor is naked. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info