[EM]

[LAYTON Craig]

Mike wrote:

>Thank you for telling us that important thing to recognize. But,
>whereas you call your website an EM resource, I've never said that

Blake's website is fairly clear that it contains his personal opinion on EM
issues.

>my views are official. However, I do believe that I speak for a majority
>of Condorcetists on this list when I say that a majority prefer
>defeat-support rather than margins.

I really don't have the same grasp of the methods as any one currently
posting on this list (except Donald, methinks), but I do prefer
defeat-support.

>The standards of majority rule & getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils
problems are
>very widely agreed-on.

Well, actually, they're not.  Some members advocate Borda or Cardinal
Ratings, both of which fail majority rule.  In my opinion Approval does as
well.  That's probably more than half the list advocating methods that fail
majority rule.

>Norm, Markus, and I have said we prefer BeatpathWinner/Cloneproof SSD
>to Tideman. You alone prefer Tideman. Steve Eppley has left the list,
>for the time being at least. With Steve, it's 3 to 2. Without Steve
>it's 3 to 1, among those who have expressed a preference on EM.

Markus appears to have left too.  For what it's worth, I prefer
BeatpathWinner/Cloneproof SSD to Ranked Pairs.  However, I like Forest's
latest Seeded Condorcet method as the best method for small committees and
any situations without tallying technology.