I read that, if I might have any credentials, for the purpose of my Democracy
Chronicles answers, then I should post them here:
I'm a longtime participant in this election-methods mailing list.
I was a founding member of this election-methods mailing list.
In fact, it was I who first proposed the "Single-Winner-Committee" that was the
basis for this election-methods mailing list.
I can't say what someone else might have proposed sooner somewhere else, but,
so far as I'm personally aware,
I was the original proponent and advocate of Condorcet(wv). That's the
winning-votes variety of Condorcet, in which the strength
of a pairwise defeat is measured by the number of voters ranking the defeater
over the defeated, for that pairwise defeat.
I pointed out some strategic advantages of this form of Condorcet.
(But I no longer consider Condorcet to be a good proposal for public elections,
due to its FBC failure. However, it's a fine method
for electorates, such as some committees, etc., that don't have the excessive
timidity and over-compromise-proneness of
our public-elections electorate.)
I've been a longtime advocate of Approval, and I now consider it my favorite
method, and unquestionably by far the best
public proposal for voting-system reform.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
