On Aug 14, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo, I believe that the main reason, why Condorcet methods never played a role in political reality, is that the Condorcet supporters could never agree on a concrete method. In consequence, the Condorcet opponents simply replied: "The Condorcet method has a problem. There may not be a Condorcet winner." See e.g.: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmproced/40/40ap04.htm http://www.lwvmn.org/LWVMNAlternativeVotingStudyReport.pdf http://www.lwvor.org/documents/ElectionMethods2008.pdf Therefore, in my opinion, you should always promote a concrete Condorcet method. And you should treat the Condorcet criterion as one criterion among many criteria.
This is literally a political strategy issue. It depends on what is more important and what is less important.
Markus, your opinion is a good opinion. Maybe even the "correct" conclusion.
Here's another: It seems to me that adopting *some* Condorcet- compliant method is more important than making sure we adopt a particular Condorcet method. The reason is that I am not convinced at all of the frequency of a cycle and, except for what to do with a cycle, there *is* a well-defined method for Condorcet (I could write a simple C program to do it) in the general sense. So then, it seems to me that once there is political momentum for Condorcet over the old Plurality or Two-round Runoff or IRV, *then* discussion of the practical issues about the procedure how the election would be carried out could begin. Among these is how to resolve cycles. Now *we* know that RP, Schulze, don't need to have different procedures for whether or not a cycle has occurred. But selling the straight method (particularly your method, Markus) will appear to be complicated and non-transparent to the lay voter (and the legislators). I *really* think that proposing Schulze or RP legal language for a law is more problematic than language for simply getting the CW. And I have read your document with such language, Markus. But, of course, there would have to be another section of the law for what to do with cycles.
Or, another possibility is that BTR-IRV which is Condorcet-compliant but looks like IRV. I am not sure I like it, but it might fly better than Condorcet language.
If it were another popular referendum vote, I wouldn't mind putting in the language of the question that the City Council (or whatever legislative body) can determine the precise procedures, including how cycles are to be resolved.
But you might be right, Markus. My ability to do politics is poor, because i over-estimate the intelligence of the proletariat.
Damned proletariat. -- r b-j [email protected] "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
