Jameson Quinn > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:38 PM > And while I don't take everything Richie says at face value, > he does have more experience than basically anyone else at > promoting voting reform, so it would be unwise to entirely > ignore his point of view. I believe that he honestly sees the > weak Condorcet winner scenario as an impediment to promoting > Condorcet, and one of his basic reasons for putting his eggs > in the IRV basket. So I think the scenario does deserve > attention. And not just from the point of view of actually > resolving the issue, but also from the point of view of > finding a sound bite/talking point for overcoming it.
I have been actively involved in practical electoral reform in the UK for fifty (50) years and never in all that time have I heard anyone suggest the use of a Condorcet system. IRV (and STV-PR) have been under practical consideration and promotion (and nearly adopted) in the UK since the late 1880s. I suspect Condorcet didn't get a look-in because, compared with IRV, it gets progressively more complicated with each increase of candidates above three and because there was no agreed and SIMPLE means of breaking Condorcet cycles (and there still isn't). I suspect the specific issue of the "weak Condorcet winner" may not then have been too significant because no-one suggested using a Condorcet system. But that would certainly be an issue now, given the nature of our current politics. James Gilmour ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
