[EM] Issues, Condorcet, and IRV (was: IRV vs. plurality)

[Eric Gorr]

At 3:13 PM +0200 8/12/03, Markus Schulze wrote:
>Dear Eric,
>
>I wrote (11 Aug 2003):
>>  Here is a concrete example where Tideman's ranked pairs method
>>  violates the Participation criterion in a very drastic manner.
>
>You wrote (12 Aug 2003):
>>  But, why should it surprise anyone that discovered votes could
>>  change the winner? It seems to me that in every election system
>>  this would be true.
>
>But when you don't see any problems with that example showing that
>Tideman's ranked pairs method violates the Participation criterion
>in a very drastic manner, then why do you see problems with that
>example showing that my beat path method violates the Participation
>criterion in a very drastic manner?:

No longer believe that to be true having had more opportunity to 
think things through.

The Participation Criterion seems useless.

You should never force everyone who can vote to vote nor decide that 
the only valid election is only that in which everyone has voted and 
all votes were properly counted.

This is asking for a level of perfection that is impossible to reach.

Of course, I am still open to having my mind changed again.