[EM] it's been pretty quiet around here...

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Aug 14, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> I believe that the main reason, why Condorcet methods
> never played a role in political reality, is that the
> Condorcet supporters could never agree on a concrete
> method. In consequence, the Condorcet opponents simply
> replied: "The Condorcet method has a problem. There may
> not be a Condorcet winner." See e.g.:
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmproced/40/40ap04.htm
> http://www.lwvmn.org/LWVMNAlternativeVotingStudyReport.pdf
> http://www.lwvor.org/documents/ElectionMethods2008.pdf
>
> Therefore, in my opinion, you should always promote
> a concrete Condorcet method. And you should treat the
> Condorcet criterion as one criterion among many criteria.

This is literally a political strategy issue.  It depends on what is  
more important and what is less important.

Markus, your opinion is a good opinion.  Maybe even the "correct"  
conclusion.

Here's another: It seems to me that adopting *some* Condorcet- 
compliant method is more important than making sure we adopt a  
particular Condorcet method.  The reason is that I am not convinced at  
all of the frequency of a cycle and, except for what to do with a  
cycle, there *is* a well-defined method for Condorcet (I could write a  
simple C program to do it) in the general sense.  So then, it seems to  
me that once there is political momentum for Condorcet over the old  
Plurality or Two-round Runoff or IRV, *then* discussion of the  
practical issues about the procedure how the election would be carried  
out could begin.  Among these is how to resolve cycles.  Now *we* know  
that RP, Schulze, don't need to have different procedures for whether  
or not a cycle has occurred.  But selling the straight method  
(particularly your method, Markus) will appear to be complicated and  
non-transparent to the lay voter (and the legislators).  I *really*  
think that proposing Schulze or RP legal language for a law is more  
problematic than language for simply getting the CW.  And I have read  
your document with such language, Markus.  But, of course, there would  
have to be another section of the law for what to do with cycles.

Or, another possibility is that BTR-IRV which is Condorcet-compliant  
but looks like IRV.  I am not sure I like it, but it might fly better  
than Condorcet language.

If it were another popular referendum vote, I wouldn't mind putting in  
the language of the question that the City Council (or whatever  
legislative body) can determine the precise procedures, including how  
cycles are to be resolved.

But you might be right, Markus.  My ability to do politics is poor,  
because i over-estimate the intelligence of the proletariat.

Damned proletariat.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."