[EM] Why Not Condorcet?

[Dave Ketchum]

On May 14, 2010, at 2:44 AM, clay shentrup wrote:
> On May 13, 7:08 pm, Dave Ketchum <da... at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
>> I see deciding to use Condorcet as important.  To go with that we
>> would need to decide how to resolve cycles.
>
> Why would you go with Condorcet when Score Voting is better in every
> way?

You had quoted RBJ:
>
> Clay, you should remember me when i was berating Rob and company at
> FairVote.org.  you might also know that i'm not much of a Score or
> Approval sympathizer.  Score requires too much information from the
> voter (they'll need to bring dice or a spinner to the voting booth)
> and Approval too little (not expressive enough).  both present the
> voter with a tactical dilemma right away, if the voter likes a
> candidate, but approves of more.  voters will likely Score their
> favorite 99 and the others as 0 (and "not approved") and then either
> Score or Approval will degenerate to FPTP.
>
> The Ranked-order Ballot requires just the right amount of information
> from the voter, and Condorcet is the correct way to tabulate it.

We can dream of value in details as we sit here and debate.  Real-life  
voters need a way to express their most serious thoughts with  
reasonable effort:
      To vote for more than Plurality's one - which even Approval  
offers.
      To vary their approval according to their amount of liking -  
Condorcet and Score offer this.
      To ask for only reasonable effort from the voters - see Condorcet.
      Score demands more.  A voter thinking of A>B>C>D has no trouble  
offering min and max ratings to A and D.   With Score the voter is  
expected to diligently assign the available rating space among A>B,  
B>C, and C>D.