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

[Dave Ketchum]

Why not agree to a shared Condorcet method definition to compete here  
with Range, etc.

Condorct ballot has rank level (unranked is bottom, don't care if  
voter skips levels (only care when comparing two whether </=/>),  
properly attend to CW.

Have to attend to cycles, but differences here not counted as method  
differences.

Dave Ketchum

On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2011/8/24 Markus Schulze <markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de>
> Hallo,
>
> I wrote (24 Aug 2011):
>
>
> > In my opinion, the "Voting Reform Statement"
> > endorses too many alternative election methods.
> > Opponents will argue that this long list
> > demonstrates that even we don't have a clue
> > which election method should be adopted.
>
> Jameson Quinn wrote (24 Aug 2011):
>
>
> > Is that worse than what happens if we can't
> > agree?
>
> Well, one of the most frequently used arguments
> against Condorcet methods is that there are too
> many Condorcet methods and that there is no
> agreement on the best one.
>
> Yes. And will not agreeing on a consensus statement help that  
> situation?
>
> What I'm saying is: yes, it would be ideal if we could reduce the  
> list and all unite behind one system. But  we as voting theorists  
> should be able to find a way to keep this apparently-unattainable  
> ideal from getting in the way of whatever agreement is actually  
> possible.
>
> JQ
> ----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110824/e0cb1c89/attachment-0004.htm>