[EM] Reply to Paul Kislanko

[RLSuter at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/11/04 3:26:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kislanko at airmail.net writes:

<< Actually, Paul understood that very well. If you recall, his original
 statement was "this is why it's so hard to explain" to non-specialists.>>

I answered the question you asked in the message I quoted. If you
really didn't need someone to answer it, why did you ask it?

<>

But you have entirely disregarded one of my main points, namely that
cycles may, in practice, either never happen at all or happen extremely
rarely. Assuming cycles would never happen in practice, then Condorcet
would be just as easy to explain as any other ranking method, and
it would easier to persuasively justify than any method at all, including
plurality. I used to teach seventh grade math in a dysfunctional inner
city school, and I'm willing to bet I could have explained Condorcet
to any of my classes with close to 100% comprehension, probably
within one or two class periods if not less than one. How easy would
it need to be to satisfy you?

-Ralph Suter