[EM] range versus condorcet & others; practical purposes

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 11:24 -0400, Warren Smith wrote:
> In some sense the range versus Condorcet debate is a red herring
> since Condorcet methods have, I think, no chance of actual adoption
> by governments.  And range does have a chance.  So for practical purposes,
> forget Condorcet. 

Condorcet has zero chance in 2005.  It has a small chance in 2010, and
better than even odds in 2050.  That's assuming we ignore your advice
and actually continue our work.

Right now, small associations are using Condorcet methods (the Debian
project being the flagship), and are giving people valuable real-world
experience in how it works.  I suspect that Condorcet methods will
continue to be relegated to computer-savvy organizations for a while
longer.

However, the online world has a way of creeping into the offline world.
Over the years, today's 20-year-olds become 30-year-olds, and eventually
become part of the "establishment".  Technophobes and fuddy-duddies die
off.  While I would prefer that Condorcet get adopted by powerful
governments nownownow, I'm willing to wait out opportunities, and
continue to hone these methods.

That's not to say that compromise can't be a smart strategy.  I believe
that Approval voting, for example, would be a /great/ reform for
primaries.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the ideal method would
be a form of Approval for a unified primary (where either all candidates
exceeding a certain Approval threshold move on to the general election,
or some fixed number of candidates move on), followed by a
Condorcet-compliant general election.

However, telling people to forget looking for the best system, and
accusing them of "masturbation" while you are at it, is pretty
offensive.

Rob