In a message dated 10/11/04 3:26:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Actually, Paul understood that very well. If you recall, his original statement was "this is why it's so hard to explain" to non-specialists.>> I answered the question you asked in the message I quoted. If you really didn't need someone to answer it, why did you ask it? <> But you have entirely disregarded one of my main points, namely that cycles may, in practice, either never happen at all or happen extremely rarely. Assuming cycles would never happen in practice, then Condorcet would be just as easy to explain as any other ranking method, and it would easier to persuasively justify than any method at all, including plurality. I used to teach seventh grade math in a dysfunctional inner city school, and I'm willing to bet I could have explained Condorcet to any of my classes with close to 100% comprehension, probably within one or two class periods if not less than one. How easy would it need to be to satisfy you? -Ralph Suter ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
