[EM] James, about PC and Simpson-Kramer

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

You wrote:

My two cents on the rampaging "plain Condorcet" vs. "Simpson-Kramer" vs.
"minimax" debate:

	The main thing I don't like don't like about the term "plain Condorcet"
is that it sounds too much like "plain yoghurt". It sounds as if the
voters are getting a half-rate cup of Condorcet that lacks strawberries or
vanilla flavoring.

I reply:

Aren't they? They're getting the basic Condorcet, the original version, with 
SFC and WDSC, but which hasn't been demonstrated to meet GSFC and SDSC, as 
have SD, SSD, CSSD, BeatpathWinner and RP.

You continue:

That, and the fact that its historical accuracy is
dubious at best...

I reply:

Fact? Are you saying that's a fact because Markus said it? Look up the 
translations of Condorcet's proposals. You'll find PC. One place to look 
would be _Theory of Committees and Elections_, by Duncan Black.  The title 
is probably as I wrote it, unless it's "...Elections and Committees".

You continue:


	I call this method "minimax", a term that comes from game theory, I
believe.

I reply:

Which method? Simpson-Kramer or PC? You said that you're replying to the 
discussion of whether or not Simpson-Kramer is PC. I told why 
Simipson-Kramer is not PC. If you believe that Simpson-Kramer is PC, then 
tell me which statement in my two most recent "Simpson-Kramer" postings you 
disagree with, and why.

Since Simpson-Kramer is not PC, and since, according to Markus, Levin, and 
Nalebuff, MinMax is Simpson-Kramer, do you see the problem in calling PC 
MinMax?

You continue:

Not that it really matters though, because I don't think the
method is worth using anyway.

I reply:

The Libertarian organization, Free State Project, used, and may still use, 
PC, and has been quite satisfied with it.

It's certainly possible that you and I don't agree on what is important. I 
consider SFC and WDSC worth getting. Maybe you don't. There's no reason to 
expect everyone to value the same guarantees.

You've got to talk to some people who aren't yet familiar with voting 
systems. Then you might be more tolerant of siimpler and more modest methods 
such as PC and CR, which, while modest proposals, would be powerful 
improvements.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/