User talk:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified

Why this page

I thought I could make a second cut that would be more user-friendly. How did I go? Andrewa (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion is true but are the premises true?

The base name New York does lead to an article on New York State, even after last year's RM. By some means that I still don't quite understand, several normally intelligent and perceptive individuals were convinced that (1) is preferred to both (2) and (3). As you know, I agree wholeheartedly with you that each of (2) and (3) is preferable to (1), but we've not yet managed to convince the world that there is a consensus on that view. I don't believe for one moment that there is a Condorcet paradox going on here, but I think this proof may rely on an unproven assumption.

A different line of proof could be based on the comparison of (2) against (3). Although there seems to be a general preference for (3) over (2), I think most of us would be happy to join a consensus for either (2) or (3). If we could somehow persuade the opposition to answer the question "do you prefer (2) or (3)" (by replying "(2)" or "(3)", rather than "no"), then we could agree to eliminate the other contender leaving only two live candidates and wave adieu to M. Condorcet. But let's keep that as Plan B and hope that we can pass the motion that "(3) is better than (1)" without (2) muddying the waters. Certes (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good points. See User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified#Dealing with a possible Condorcet. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. Those changes deal with my points and finish off the essay well. Certes (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)