[EM] Markus re: Steve Eppley

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (9 March 2003):
> It seems to me that the choice of which of those 2
> methods to propose, RP or BeatpathWinner/CSSD, should
> be based entirely on which is more winnable with your
> audience.
>
> I'd propose RP as a public proposal, due to its briefer
> definition. And I'd offer BeatpathWinner to organizations
> & committees, due to its elegantly simple & brief algorithm
> & computer program. I promote BeatpathWinner/CSSD & RP.
> BeatpathWinner/CSSD to organizations & committees, and RP
> for public proposals.

On the one side you write that "the choice of which of those
2 methods to propose should be based entirely on which is
more winnable with your audience." On the other side you
write that you propose Ranked Pairs for public elections
and the beat path method for committee elections. Therefore,
I conclude that you consider Ranked Pairs to be more winnable
with the public and the beat path method to be more winnable
with committees.

Do I interpret you correctly?:

You consider the beat path method to be better than Ranked Pairs
because of the "elegantly simple & brief algorithm & computer
program" of the beat path method. But you believe that the
average committee member is significantly more intelligent
than the average voter so that the beat path method could be
too difficult to understand for the average voter. Therefore,
you suggest that Ranked Pairs should be proposed for public
elections because of its briefer definition and despite of
its disadvantages (i.e. not having an "elegantly simple &
brief algorithm & computer program").

Markus Schulze