[EM] Why no Condorcet proposals?

[Michael Ossipoff]

That question was recently asked.

Condorcet has many versions, & there’s no agreement on that matter.

So Condorcet doesn’t have any enactment-projects, or even an organization.

Condorcet was computationally infeasible for more than a few candidates, in
the days when Hare began being adopted a century ago. Hence its
particularly great unfamiliarity.

Those things are regrettable, because only Condorcet can fully reassure our
thoroughly-conditioned lesser-evil voters that they needn’t too-vote an
evil.

How about proposing Condorcet in your community, & demonstrating it in
various nonpolitical votes.

Sometimes a city, county or state governing-body will outright enact a
voting-system reform. That’s happened for RCV.

…or maybe would order & schedule a referendum, as has likewise happened for
RCV.

But, as a last-resort, one could advertise on bulletin-boards, online, in
the classifieds, etc., to convene a Condorcet enactment committee, for the
pursuit of an initiative.

Suggest, to them, a few of the simpler & long-discussed versions, such as:

MinMax(wv)
CW, Implicit-Approval (CW, IA).

Neither needs mention of the Smith-set or cycles.

Both thwart offensive-truncation, & deter burial if people use the
defensive-strategy of refusing to rank anyone they don’t like & don’t wish
to beat the CW via burial.

That committee could then conduct focus-groups, in person or online, to
find out which Condorcet version would have the best chance of
initiative-enactment.

Obviously Approval would be the best voting-system by which for that
focus-group to vote among the proposals. Participants should be asked to
approve (only) the proposal(s) that they’d support in an initiative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240110/880e78a2/attachment.htm>