Blake reply N+8

[Blake Cretney]

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:19:25   Mike Ositoff wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I think this may be our main difference of opinion.  You are only
>> interested in situations where there is a Condorcet winner.  I think it
>> is important to use a method that is fair and reasonable even when there
>> is no Condorcet winner.  A fair method would not punish voters for
>> ignorance of the random-filling strategy.  A reasonable method would not
>
>Yes, and a fair method would meet IIAC. We have completely different
>goals, in regards to which criteria are important, and which
>attainable criteria should be gotten at the expense of other
>criteria. It must be becoming obvious that single-winner reform
>in the form of rank-balloting isn't going to happen, because
>there'll never be agreement among rank-count proponents, who
>all want different things. More & more obvious that rank-balloting
>should be abandoned as a proposal, and that Approval is the
>attainable reform.
>
Does Margins have any opponents who are still pursuing pair-wise
methods?  Otherwise, the debate should really be marginal
Condorcet vs. Approval, etc. instead of Margins vs. Votes-Against.



-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums