Problems with Condorcet

[Mike Ositoff]

I should comment on Bart Ingles's statement that he associates
this list's discussion with "endless variations on the same theme".

Same theme:

We've discussed all sorts of different kinds of methods, and
different standards. A number of us have established that we
agree on the main properties that we want from a voting system,
and so we've narrowed down the range of different methods that
we consider. Is that what you mean by "same theme"?

But as you know, there are postings & discussion, still, about
quite different kinds of methods & standards, and so your
use of "same" is inaccurate, in addition to not having any
meaning as a criticism, for the reasons stated in the previous
paragraph.

Endless variations:

Actually there are only so many variations on these Condorcdet
related methods. The set of variations we've discussed isn't
endless, and I doubt that the set of practical, desirable
variations is endless either. And even among the few variations
that we've discussed, some have turned out to be equivalent.

Maybe "endless variations" means more variations than you'd like.
No problem; to each their own. And, again, you have a problem with
detail, and the study of what the proposals will do. Some of us
believe that these things matter, in regards to public proposals.
										
I shouldn't even be answering off-the-wall comments, 
newsgroup-noise; as opposed to serious argument from 
conscientious, interested people, or as opposed to serious
questions. Arrogance & presumption are marks of newsgroup-noise.

Mike Ossipoff