There seem to be two possible audiences:
Those into theory, for which this may have been worth presenting,
but has likely worn out its welcome as something worth studying and debating.
Those, such as myself, into public elections. This was an
interesting thought, but my interest expire
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 01:52:46 -0400
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EM] Cheering for simplicity
(snip)
Public elections:
Executive - for a single winner. These will continue to exist,
but we need to get past Plurality, which most of us recognize as not
deservi
Rob Speer wrote:
>Didn't we hear this same debate, oh, a week ago? And the week before
>that? It seems like every thread on this list eventually turns into
>"Weak centrist!" "Condorcet winner!" "Weak centrist!" "Condorcet winner!"
>Unless someone's providing some new information (like, say, the r
Makes sense for this reflector to serve a variety of interests, but
identifying interests could simplify understanding for many. In what
follows I will concentrate on US public elections:
Intellectual reasons - some choose to be here, and some even seem to
make a buck at it - they confuse th
