Defn of Condorcet's method

[Mike Ossipoff]

I haven't yet had the opportunity to translate Bruce's definitions
& lemma from its formulese, but let me just say for now that
Condorcet's method is _not_ as complicated as that formulese would
make it seem. I've posted a brief & simple rule, in English, to
define Condorcet's method. And, contrary to what a mathematician
might claim, my wording in English is unambiguous. Anyone claiming
otherwise should show how it could have more than 1 meaning.

Please don't let all that formulese convince you that Condorcet's
method is complicated, or that that the single-winner method subject
is complicated. All that's complicated is the things that mathematicians
like to discuss, which often don't have bearing on the issue of
determining which of several proposed methods are the bet according
to particular standards.

Bruce has proposed several definitions for various versions of Condorcet's
methods, & a lemma about them. If you're into that, then fine. But I
emphasize that none of that is necessary for our task of evaluating the
_proposed_ methods according to standards on which we have some agreement.


Mike


--