<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Why not agree to a shared Condorcet method definition to compete here with Range, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Condorct ballot has rank level (unranked is bottom, don't care if voter skips levels (only care when comparing two whether </=/>), properly attend to CW.</div><div><br></div><div>Have to attend to cycles, but differences here not counted as method differences.</div><div><br></div><div>Dave Ketchum</div><br><div><div>On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/24 Markus Schulze <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de">markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Hallo,<br> <br> I wrote (24 Aug 2011):<div class="im"><br> <br> > In my opinion, the "Voting Reform Statement"<br> > endorses too many alternative election methods.<br> > Opponents will argue that this long list<br> > demonstrates that even we don't have a clue<br> > which election method should be adopted.<br> <br></div> Jameson Quinn wrote (24 Aug 2011):<div class="im"><br> <br> > Is that worse than what happens if we can't<br> > agree?<br> <br></div> Well, one of the most frequently used arguments<br> against Condorcet methods is that there are too<br> many Condorcet methods and that there is no<br> agreement on the best one.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. And will not agreeing on a consensus statement help that situation?</div><div><br></div><div>What I'm saying is: yes, it would be ideal if we could reduce the list and all unite behind one system. But we as voting theorists should be able to find a way to keep this apparently-unattainable ideal from getting in the way of whatever agreement is actually possible.</div> <div><br></div><div>JQ</div></div> ----</blockquote></div></body></html>