Condorcet-Ossipoff (was Coombs: Full count, etc)

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Ossipoff wrote- 
I have no idea what Prof. Coombs said about unranked alternatives.  I'd guess
that, most likely, he didn't say anything about it, since the academic
assumption has always been that everyone ranks all of the alternatives.  Just
as Condorcet probably didn't say anything about that question.  In both
methods, I define them in the way that actually works. Similarly, that's why
I define Condorcet's method in terms of votes-against, though Condorcet, as I
understand it, didn't specify how defeats should be measured.
----
D- Thus, since Mr. Condorcet is no longer alive to comment about unranked
alternatives, should Condorcet on this list be actually Condorcet-Ossipoff ?

Since there are other possible tie breakers in the head to head matrix of all
candidates when there is no single head to head winner in all of his/her
pairings (such as total votes for, total votes against, total votes for minus
total votes against, etc.), there can also be Condorcet-Eppley,
Condorcet-Lanphier, Condorcet-Demorep, Condorcet-Davidson (?), etc., etc.

Again, I note that Mr. Arrow says that any election method (with its tie
breaker) has strategy problems. 

Which tie breaker will make the most sense to the public (who will be asked
in the States to vote on constitutional amendments for single and/or multiple
winner election reforms for executive and judicial offices) ?