Jonathan Lundell wrote: >Regardless, your argument illustrates one of my points. You strongly >prefer Condorcet voting because (at least in part) you minimize its >flaws. But it's a faith-based minimization that assumes a model of >voter behavior that, near as I can tell, has little evidence to back >it up.
The problem with your arguments is that they are every bit as conjectural and ungrounded in helpful empirical evidence as the arguments of others you have described as irrational. I'd like to know on what evidence you can so confidently dismiss the conclusions of others as "faith-based." Reading minds about why people "strongly prefer" things isn't something that I was aware was scientifically possible. Have I missed out on some recent breakthroughs in the science of mind reading? If so, please fill me in. That should make it possible to answer many kinds of previously unanswerable questions about voting behavior. -Ralph Suter ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info