Markus, Do you have any example of FairVote suggesting Condorcet methods might be unconstitutional? I have worked with FairVote for many years, and I don't think they ever made that argument, or that Later-No-Harm failure makes any method unconstitutional (the widely used block plurality method fails L-N-H). I would certainly support a referendum for adopting Condorcet Voting compared to plurality. A nutshell summary of FairVote's position, I believe, would be that PR is the most significant reform, but that for single-seat elections, Condorcet is a theoretically much better method than Plurality, Bucklin or Approval, but like Range Voting, Condorcet has characteristics that make it unappealing to most Americans, and it probably has no chance of being adopted for governmental elections in the U.S., and that the best single-seat reform that has any realistic chance of adoption is IRV.
Terry Bouricius ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Schulze" <markus.schu...@alumni.tu-berlin.de> To: <election-meth...@electorama.com> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood Hallo, FairVote always argued that Brown vs. Smallwood declared Bucklin unconstitutional because of its violation of later-no-harm. FairVote always claimed that, therefore, also Condorcet methods were unconstitutional. However, the memorandum of the district court doesn't agree to this interpretation of Brown vs. Smallwood. This means that this memorandum is a progress at least in so far as FairVote cannot use Brown vs. Smallwood anymore as an argument against Condorcet methods. Markus Schulze ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
