On May 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 15.5.2012, at 11.11, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Juho and Kristofer:
Just a few preliminary words before I continue my reply to
Kristofer that I
interrupted a few hours ago:
We all agree that Approval would be much easier to propose and
enact than
would Condorcet. Therefore, we must also agree that, given the same
level of
effort, the expected time needed to enact Approval is quite a bit
less than
the expected time needed to enact Condorcet.
Now, given that, there are two reasons why you could say that we
should try
for Condorcet instead of Approval:
I'm still not quite certain what elections this proposal refers to.
If it refers to use of different single-winner methods in single-
winner districts of a multi-winner election to elect members to some
representative body, then I'm not ready to recommend elther of those
changes before I understand what the goals are.
On another subject:
But if you want to suggest that others shouldn't propose Approval,
then you
need to give a good reason.
Approval may be an easy and acceptaböe first step. My opinion is
that you should plan also next steps, in case someone wants to
cancel the reform, drive it further, or if the strategic
vulnerabilities of Approval pop up in some election (like the
Condorcet criterion problem popped up in Burlington, althogh that
was maybe not even noticed by all).
Juho
Now, to resume my Kristofer reply:
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
