Michael Ossipoff wrote:> I was discouraged when It seemed like Garman’s & Robert’s contrarinesses-for-its own-sake was the state-of affairs. When have I ever been a "contrarian-for-its-own-sake"?I am a Condorcet partisan (regarding single-winner elections).I have good reasons for being an exclusive Condorcet partisan. I am and have been completely consistent about it. If I am contradicting someone here, it's likely only motivated by that.
I’m also curious where I’ve been a “contrarian for its own sake.” My ideas
might not be common on here, but I’ve been consistent in what I support and
advocate for.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 8:12 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I was discouraged when It seemed like Garman’s & Robert’s
contrarinesses-for-its own-sake was the state-of affairs.
When have I ever been a "contrarian-for-its-own-sake"?
I am a Condorcet partisan (regarding single-winner elections).
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Robert—
No I just meant about the poll.
wv Condorcet is the thing to offer to jurisdictions where people insist on
rankings, & to political parties whose members expect a rank-balloting
proposal…& for certain kinds of polls, such as the current one here.
Margins Condorcet doesn’t really avoid IRV’s & Plurality’s strategy
problem. CW, Plurality is no better. Expensive Plurality.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:13 robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I was discouraged when It seemed like Garman’s & Robert’s
contrarinesses-for-its own-sake was the state-of affairs.
When have I ever been a "contrarian-for-its-own-sake"?
I am a Condorcet partisan (regarding single-winner elections).
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info