[EM] Condorcet for public proposals

[Forest Simmons]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, [iso-8859-1] Anthony Duff wrote:

> I am replying to:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com/msg01542.html
> From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF"
> Subject: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:47:47 +0000
>
> Mike wrote, in part,
>
>
> >... SSD, RP, and PC are
> >the Condorcet versions to propose for public elections.
> >
> >That's because those Condorcet versions are the ones with natural
> and
> >obvious motivation and justification. Obviously, of those 3, PC
> isn't as
> >good as the other 2.
>
> As I understand: SSD and RP are excellent methods, they are identical
> in virtually every reasonable election result, and it is too
> difficult to definitively decide which is better.  PC is a very good
> method, with the merit of being straightforward and brief to explain.
>
> Mike implies(?), something that I think is very important.  If you
> are going to make a serious public proposal, you have to be certain
> about your proposal.  If you are hesitating over the details, then
> you will not inspire confidence.  When it comes to a public proposal,
> with a public that has little patience for details, you must have
> precisely one, well defined proposal.

Why not give the voters a choice between several well defined proposals?

Do we believe in democracy or not?

Forest