<div>Condordet's method (including Kemeny) is of some non-practical mathematical interest, as a possible answerto the question</div><div>"How should we count sincere rankings?"</div><div> </div><div>I have no criticism of that abstract and non-practical study.</div>
<div> </div><div>In the real world, however, we can't assume sincere rankings. Strategy must be considered. Methods' strategy problems must</div><div>be considered.</div><div> </div><div>This makes the real world, public political elections, voting system choice an entirely different problem, as opposed to the academic</div>
<div>debate over the best way to count sincere rankings.</div><div> </div><div>I've argued that FBC failure is the seriously societally-damaging criterion-failure, and I've told my justifications for that claim.</div>
<div> </div><div>Additionally, I've mentioned the co-operation/defection problem, or chicken-dilemma, which makes nonsens of any claim</div><div>that Condorcet gets rid of strategy need in the real world.</div><div> </div>
<div>So, I suggest that it's important that we keep it straight which discussion we're participating in: The academic question of how best</div><div>to count sincere rankings, or the real world question of what will avoid societal harm when used in public political elections.</div>
<div> </div><div>We have different reasons for our participation here. </div><div> </div><div>Speaking for myself, I suggest that _results_ are what is important. Societal results. </div><div> </div><div>Some others are saying, "My method is the ideal best!" Well, for one thing, remember what Richard said about that claim: What is the ideal</div>
<div>best must depend on which criterion or criteria you consider the most important. </div><div> </div><div>Besides, of what relevance is the ideal best, if it doesn't get enacted? And no, it isn't enough to say, "Yes, but if my method _were_ enacted..."</div>
<div> </div><div>"If"s are irrelevant. As I've recently quoted, "If wishes were horses...".</div><div> </div><div>Are we interested in actual social improvements that actually happen, or are we interested in ideal best, when we don't even agree on by</div>
<div>what criteria to judge ideal best-ness?</div><div> </div><div>Shall we keep on fighting about who goes through the door, like the 3 Stooges, or shall we actually get through the door?</div><div> </div><div>Mike Ossipoff</div>
<div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div>