Let's rename Smith-Condorcet

[Hugh Tobin]

Steve Eppley wrote:

>I'd say that electing the beats-all candidate, if there is one, 
>certainly is about majority rule.

I agree, because I think the relevant majority in deciding between any
two options is a majority of those who express a preference between
them, and that when there are more than two options one cannot expect
that
any will get a majority of the first choices.  For this reason I think a
name using "Majority" could be applied with equal justification to a
version of Condorcet that does not meet the so-called "Majority Rule"
Criterion, which has been advanced on this list as having importance
independent of the criterion that Steve has stated above.
  
I would not object to "Majority Rule" for Smith//Condorcet, if the name
were explained on the ground that the system elects the candidate (if
any) who receives a majority of votes cast in the pairwise race against
each other candidate.  However, "MR" is not very descriptive and would
meet objection from advocates of other systems.  I think a name that
conveys a pairwise system, along the lines of Steve's earlier
suggestion, would be better.  How about "Pairwise Majority Rule"?  

One would still need a suffix to identify the specific tiebreak system
in technical discussions. This is not an objection, because at this
early stage in the reform process Smith//Condorcet supporters should
seek to unify around the essential features of that system rather than
to divide over how to deal with short ballots in the tiebreak. 

-- Hugh Tobin