Here's the links and a quick summary of what was said:<div><br><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-rethinking-how-we-vote.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion">Page 1</a></div>

<div>Liskov: Too complicated, just same-day primaries</div><div>Stevens: Iowa is good for "retail politics""
</div><div>Steven Brams: IRV sucks, approval better.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-rethinking-how-we-vote.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion">Page 2:</a></div>

<div>Szydlik: Threatens establishment, we need wide grassroots.</div><div>Donovan: Caucuses are undemocratic</div><div>Maskin (nobel-prize winning economist): Condorcet better (he calls it "<a href="http://www.sss.ias.edu/files/pdfs/maskincv.pdf">true majority rule</a>")</div>

<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-rethinking-how-we-vote.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=opinion">Page 3:</a></div><div>Bullard: IRV good idea</div><div>Richie: responds, including approval-fails-majority-criterion argument.</div>

</div><div><br></div><div>So they didn't publish my letter, but my points were made by Brams, Szydlik, and Maskin.</div><div><br></div><div>Jameson</div>