I've never understood the criticism that Condorcet is hard to understand. If one candidate would beat all others head-to-head, that candidate wins. That's it.

I've never understood the criticism that Condorcet is hard to understand. If one candidate would beat all others head-to-head, that candidate wins. That's it. The weirdness comes in the strange tiebreaker methods if there's a "loop", but when you have a lot of voters, loops are rare. (Condorcet proponents would probably get more mileage if they had a better conceptual split between methods that identify the Smith Set, and methods that seek to award single winners of multi-member Smith Sets - those "tiebreakers" are where all the problems happen, and none of those flaws are relevant in elections where there is a Condorcet Winner.)