Bruce's Condorcet definition

Mike Ossipoff dfb at
Tue Apr 16 04:07:35 PDT 1996

I used careless wording when I translated into English the formulese
of Bruce's definition. Lest it seem that I don't understand that
definition, let me say it better now:

Bruce is saying that the winner by Condorcet's method, as he defines
that method, is the alternative whose smallest vote for it against
another alternative, over all of its pairwise comparisons, is the

Isn't that what you meant, Bruce?

I'd have to re-check the translation of Condorcet's words to be able
to say for sure if Bruce's interpretation is completely ruled out by
Condorcet's un-specific wording. But I'd really be curious to hear how
Bruce justifies his votes-for count in terms of Condorcet's words. 
Just make it up?  Is it just coincidence that your votes-for count, 
& your counting of non-existent preference votes are both things that
result in a method that won't have the lesser-of-2-evils properties
of Condorcet's method? That you're proposing a definition for Condorcet's
method that won't accomplish anything in that regard, just as Copeland's
method, which you also like, won't? Is that your real criterion for
methods that you like--that they not accomplish a damn thing in terms
of what's important to the voter, or in terms of minimizing the
need for insincere voting?

In any case, why give more (& creative) definitions of a method that
you don't propose. Surely each method should be defined by its 
proponents (except where that conflicts with the definition by
the method's original proponent).



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list