Donald Davison on Condorcet (was Re: Reply to Hugh Tobin's lette

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Steve Eppley wrote:
> Donald D wrote:
> >I would be inclined to say No. The final answer to all these
> >questions is that the public will learn and adjust to whichever
> >method is in use in their area. One possible adjustment is for them
> >not to make any more selections than one. 
> 
>    *** Alert!  Disorderly discussion! ***
> The author of the above has repeated an allegation which has been
> repeatedly rebutted, yet has never attempted to rebut the rebuttal. 
> The author is violating "due process" of maillists to assert it again
> without replying to the rebuttal.  
>    **************************************
> 
> Personally, I consider disorderly discussion to be as damaging to
> maillists as flaming is.
> 
> As demonstrated by his recent question about whether a candidate who
> isn't first-ranked on any voter's ballot can be tallied pairwise,
> Donald is still fairly clueless about Condorcet's method.  I don't 
> believe the general public will have as hard a time understanding
> it as Donald has.

I honestly doubt that there has been a serious attempt to reconcile
differences here.

Please folks, exchange phone numbers.  *Talk* to one another.  People just
aren't as evil as they seem when the only communication you have with them
is a public email debate.   Public email is about as cold of a medium as
it gets.  You'll rarely reach any sort of understanding through it if you
don't start out understanding each other.

That said, Donald, I'd really love to hear you explain why people would
truncate even though there is no benefit to them.
---
Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla