[EM] Kristofer, April 3, '12, Approval vs Condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

On May 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 15.5.2012, at 11.11, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>>
>> Juho and Kristofer:
>>
>> Just a few preliminary words before I continue my reply to  
>> Kristofer that I
>> interrupted a few hours ago:
>>
>> We all agree that Approval would be much easier to propose and  
>> enact than
>> would Condorcet. Therefore, we must also agree that, given the same  
>> level of
>> effort, the expected time needed to enact Approval is quite a bit  
>> less than
>> the expected time needed to enact Condorcet.
>>
>> Now, given that, there are two reasons why you could say that we  
>> should try
>> for Condorcet instead of Approval:
>
> I'm still not quite certain what elections this proposal refers to.  
> If it refers to use of different single-winner methods in single- 
> winner districts of a multi-winner election to elect members to some  
> representative body, then I'm not ready to recommend elther of those  
> changes before I understand what the goals are.
>>
>> On another subject:
>
>> But if you want to suggest that others shouldn't propose Approval,  
>> then you
>> need to give a good reason.
>
> Approval may be an easy and acceptaböe first step. My opinion is  
> that you should plan also next steps, in case someone wants to  
> cancel the reform, drive it further, or if the strategic  
> vulnerabilities of Approval pop up in some election (like the  
> Condorcet criterion problem popped up in Burlington, althogh that  
> was maybe not even noticed by all).
>
> Juho
>> Now, to resume my Kristofer reply:
>> Mike Ossipoff