[EM] "we only get one shot" (Re: RCV Challenge)

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 01/01/2022 10:59 AM Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> As far as I know (which isn't far) Condorcet methods are means of cross-checking given methods, rather than a method in their own right.
> 

Uhm, Richard, that's something that, at least some of us are trying to change.  I am trying to make Condorcet a method in Vermont.

In my vocabulary, a "Condorcet method" in it's own right, is any method that is Condorcet-consistent.

And some methods that requires a "Condorcet completion" method (in the vocabulary of https://condorcet.ca/ ) begins with a straight Condorcet method where every pairing of candidates is examined and losers are marked.

> By the way, the point is that an election method should make use of an exclusion count, as well as an election count.

What is "an exclusion count"?  Or "an election count?"

(My pedantry showing again.)

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.