[EM] Executive Summary for Declaration

[Andy Jennings]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Richard Fobes <ElectionMethods at votefair.org
> wrote:

> Removing the names of the "good" Condorcet methods is not acceptable. (We
> can change the word "good" if that's the issue.)
>
> Already we dropped "Condorcet-Tideman" (ranked pairs) from the list because
> Tideman himself prefers Condorcet-IRV (according to what I understand from
> Jameson Quinn).
>
> Originally the statement said that all the supported methods have been used
> to elect officials in organizations, but I had to change that to "our four
> supported methods" because Condorcet-IRV and Condorcet-Approval have not
> been used to elect officials (if I understand Jameson Quinn correctly).
>
> Listing specific Condorcet methods is essential. (As an exaggerated
> similarity, imagine expressing support for Bucklin methods and then not
> mentioning Majority Judgement as a specifically supported method.) The
> differences between the Condorcet methods are significant, especially in
> terms of how easy or hard they are to explain. The fact that they produce
> very similar results is just part of the picture.
>
> And we don't want someone taking the words "any of the Condorcet methods"
> literally, choosing an obscure Condorcet method that no one really supports,
> trying to get an organization to adopt it, and then having to answer the
> question "has it ever been used to elect officials?" with a "no". We want to
> fully support what we say we support.
>
> Personally I'd be happy to drop the reference to Condorcet-Approval, but
> I'm assuming that Approval advocates would not approve.



This is a good argument, and I don't disagree.  But still it feels like the
tone dives from conversational to technical right there.

Also, I feel like I know Condorcet-Kemeny and Condorcet-Schulze very well,
but I don't have a good feeling for Condorcet-Approval or Condorcet-IRV, and
I'm pretty informed about this stuff.  Those two aren't even listed on the
wikipedia page for Condorcet
Method<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method>.
 It doesn't seem like we've discussed them that much on this list, either.
 I guess I am fine with pretty much any Condorcet method, so it just seems
arbitrary to list these four.

But if everyone else is fine with it, that's fine.  It's really just minor
for me.  It won't keep me from signing.

Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110908/f0260aeb/attachment-0004.htm>