<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -webkit-sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "></span></blockquote>First, quoting Wikipedia:<br><blockquote type="cite" class=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -webkit-sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">A <b>Condorcet method</b> is any single-winner <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system" title="Voting system" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; ">election method</a> that meets the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion" title="Condorcet criterion" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; ">Condorcet criterion</a>, that is, which always selects the Condorcet winner, the candidate who would beat each of the other candidates in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-off_election" title="Run-off election" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; ">run-off election</a>, if such a candidate exists. In modern examples, voters rank candidates in order of preference. There are then multiple, slightly differing methods for calculating the winner, due to the need to resolve <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Circular_ambiguities" title="Condorcet method" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; ">circular ambiguities</a>—including the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemeny-Young_method" title="Kemeny-Young method" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; ">Kemeny-Young method</a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_Pairs" title="Ranked Pairs" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; color: rgb(90, 54, 150); background-position: initial initial; ">Ranked Pairs</a>, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method" title="Schulze method" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; color: rgb(90, 54, 150); background-position: initial initial; ">Schulze method</a>. Almost all of these methods give the same result if there are fewer than 4 candidates in the circularly-ambiguous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_set" title="Smith set" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; ">Smith set</a> and voters separately rank all of them.</span></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I have heard this complaint before, so am listening for help.</div><div><br></div><div>WHAT should I say when I want EXACTLY what is described as "Condorcet" above?</div><div><br></div>Dave Ketchum<div><br><div><div>On Apr 17, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hallo,<br><br>Dave Ketchum wrote (18 April 2010):<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Why IRV? Have we not buried that deep enough?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Why not Condorcet which does better with about<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the same voting?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Why TTR? Shouldn't that be avoided if trying<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for a good method? TTR requires smart deciding<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as to which candidates to vote on.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Will not Condorcet attend to clones with minimum<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pain? Voters can rank them together (with equal<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or adjacent ranks).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Does not Condorcet properly attend to "symmetric"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with a voted cycle?<br></blockquote><br>In my opinion, "Condorcet" refers to a criterion<br>rather than to an election method.<br><br>Markus Schulze</div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>