Not Opposed to Re-Starting w/ Tie.

[Mike Ossipoff]

I didn't want to make it sound as if I disagree with or oppose the
suggestion, in a tie-breaking procedure, to take a reduced tie 
back to the 1st method ("taking it from the top with the reduced tie").

The main objection would invovlve simplicity of explanation, & 
speed of count. But these things aren't likely to be important on
a committee such as EM, though they might be more important on
committees of most other organizations, including ER, or various
political & electoral reform organizations.

But I agree that there's a case for starting over with the reduced tie.
Even though the initial use of Condorcet got rid of the lesser-of-
2-evils problem, and dealt with the majority rule issue in the original
alternative-set, it could still be said there's a majority-rule issue
in regards to the reduced set in the tie.

Not nearly as important a majority rule issue of course. After
all, everything in the 1st tie, the one returned by Condorcet,
did equally well, and was indistinguishable in merit by the
standards protected by that method. So how badly could majority
rule be violated regardless of what happened in the tie-solution?

Still, a person could say "But why not still use a method that
abides by majority rule when solving the tie, so that, even
among those equal winners, majority rule can still be said to
be the basis of the choice. The best of the best alternatives."

So I certainly don't oppose or disagree with sending ties or reduced
ties back to the 1st method, starting over with those reduced ties.
Though not necessary, and though perhaps too complicated for some
organizations, it could, like the Schwartz set, be said to have
aesthetic appeal.


Mike


--