Why not agree to a shared Condorcet method definition to compete here
with Range, etc.
Condorct ballot has rank level (unranked is bottom, don't care if
voter skips levels (only care when comparing two whether </=/>),
properly attend to CW.
Have to attend to cycles, but differences here not counted as method
differences.
Dave Ketchum
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/24 Markus Schulze <markus.schu...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
Hallo,
I wrote (24 Aug 2011):
> In my opinion, the "Voting Reform Statement"
> endorses too many alternative election methods.
> Opponents will argue that this long list
> demonstrates that even we don't have a clue
> which election method should be adopted.
Jameson Quinn wrote (24 Aug 2011):
> Is that worse than what happens if we can't
> agree?
Well, one of the most frequently used arguments
against Condorcet methods is that there are too
many Condorcet methods and that there is no
agreement on the best one.
Yes. And will not agreeing on a consensus statement help that
situation?
What I'm saying is: yes, it would be ideal if we could reduce the
list and all unite behind one system. But we as voting theorists
should be able to find a way to keep this apparently-unattainable
ideal from getting in the way of whatever agreement is actually
possible.
JQ
----
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
