I tried making this post to the list, only for the list to flake out and unsubscribe me. Since I haven't logged on for a couple of days, I missed all mail to this list from Feb 4 and Feb 5. If folks could forward me any mail from Feb 4 or Feb 5 I'd appreciate it. This will let me update the archive and read anything I've missed Thanks Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eskimo.com/~robla ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:09:03 -0800 (PST) >From: Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Condorcet short description > >This isn't quite layman talk (there are big words) but it's a start.... > >Hugh, feel free to muck with this if you like. If anyone has some simpler >language, feel free to take a stab at it. >---------- >Condorcet's method is a sophisticated, primariless election >method that rigorously picks the majoritarian candidate from >an arbitrarily large pool of candidates. Condorcet's method >is based upon the simple principle that a winning candidate >should be able to beat any other candidate in a head-to-head >matchup. It determines the outcome of simulated >head-to-head matchups by aggregating the ranked ballots of >all voters in a table of pairwise "outcomes". > >This method eliminates the need for primaries, which only >serve as method for allowing the fringe from one party or >the other undue influence over the eventual compromise of >all, while shutting out blocs that "bet on the wrong horse", >through no fault of their ideas. > >Condorcet elections almost invariably either: >a. Pick the candidate who has the majority support of all > voters (voters that were uncoerced to vote for a lesser > candidate after a preferred candidate was knocked out > in a primary) >b. Choose a compromise which a majority prefer to any other > compromise in lieu of the existance of a majority-rule > candidate. > >Rob Lanphier >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.eskimo.com/~robla >
