[EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version

[Jameson Quinn]

>
>
> Again I choke on IRV getting near Condorcet, even though they use the same
> ballot.
>
>
I've seen several results arguing for Condorcet/IRV hybrids as having good
strategy resistance compared to other Condorcet methods. For instance,
http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/FORTHCOMING/I29P1f.pdf . Tideman, for
instance, is on record as supporting such a hybrid as the best realistic
method.

At a more basic level, I think that if we're going to reach consensus, it's
important to not be to facile about shooting down methods others favor. I
hear several Condorcet advocates reacting to the statement by repeating
pro-Condorcet arguments, essentially saying that they are reluctant to sign
something which advocates methods they consider inferior to Condorcet. If we
have to decide whether Condorcet is better or Approval is better [1] before
we have a statement, we're never going to get anywhere.

JQ

[1] See http://www.cs.brown.edu/~ws/personal/approval.pdf for an example of
an argument that Approval is better than Condorcet. I'm not trying to fan
the flames here, I'm just trying to illustrate that there are two sides to
this issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110824/6c073112/attachment-0004.htm>