In my previous message, "Reply to Examples & Criticisms", I made
a wording error:
When I said that with Copeland no defensive strategy is needed
unless order-reversal is being attempted on a large scale, I meant
that with _Condorcet_ no defensive strategy is needed unless order-
reversal is being attempted on a large scale.
Condorcet (along with a few close relatives) is the only method
that gets rid of the need for defensive strategy under all
plausible conditions. And I emphasize that, under the less plausible
conditions where that isn't so, Copeland still does a lot worse
You may later hear someone say "What good does it do to get rid
of strategy need under conditins where order-reversal isn't being
attempted on a large scale, if that guarantee doesn't apply if
order-reversal _is_ being attempted on a large scale?
1. As Bruce & I have agreed, voters aren't going to be using offensive
strategy on a large scale. That's especially true in Condorcet's method,
due to the degree to which it's deterred. What that means is that,
effectively, Condorcet's method is completely free of need for
defensive strategy. That's a difficult advantage to beat, since
one way of putting our goal in single-winner reform is, we want to
get rid of the need for defensive strategy.
2. Well if we want to talk about order-reversal, Copeland is much
more vulneable to it, as I'll get to when I compare the 2 methods
in a subsequent letter.