Re: [EM] Unifying behind range is tactically necessary (including for AV & Condorcet advocates)

2005-08-15 Thread Brian Olson
How about this, I'm going for writing the law such that the elections official in charge can choose from a few approved, good enough, election methods. So, you pass this law once, and various places try Condorcet, IRNR, even IRV, and it's a simple thing for state or county elections officia

Re: [EM] Unifying behind range is tactically necessary (including for AV & Condorcet advocates)

2005-08-15 Thread Dave Ketchum
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:54:59 -0400 Warren Smith wrote in part: Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including a couple condorcet systems according to my giant comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000. OK, maybe you can attack that. Maybe you can say I did not p

Re: [EM] Unifying behind range is tactically necessary (including for AV & Condorcet advocates)

2005-08-15 Thread Abd ulRahman Lomax
At 12:54 PM 8/15/2005, Warren Smith wrote: Also range is TACTICALLY THE BEST in terms of the PLAN of appealing to US 3rd parties Convince me that, say, the Libertarian party would not be interested in being able to receive votes for its candidate which the candidate could then distribute

[EM] Unifying behind range is tactically necessary (including for AV & Condorcet advocates)

2005-08-15 Thread Warren Smith
> >Rob Lanphier re the Center for Range Voting: >If you had the kind of backing that CVD has, I might believe you. However, in terms of popular voting reforms, only CVD can make the claim that they've got the political organization and the momentum to follow through right now. CAV/AAV is making