Coombs meets LO2E-2

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O wrote:
-snip-
>Of course any method that doesn't meet them already would be
>improved if mitigated by requiring compliance with Condorcet's
>criterion & GMC, or NPL & NML.

Is there a general way to require compliance?  I think that means
stating the criteria as methods which select a subset of the
candidates.  A method (like Coombs) could be the tie-breaker of 
the criterion-expressed-as-method (like NML):  NML//Coombs

BeatsAll and NPL are methods which express the Condorcet Criterion.
Is NML a method which expresses GMC?  If not, what method does?

-snip-
>I've defined LO2E-2 in full here, but a brief way of putting
>it could be: A method meets LO2E-2 iff a full majority who
>rank A over B have a way of voting whereby they can ensure
>that B won't win, and this doesn't require that they vote
>a less-liked alternative equal to or over a more liked one.
>
>That isn't my full & complete definition, which I've previously
>posted on EM.
-snip-

For those unfamiliar with the term "iff" Mike used above, it's a 
shorthand which means "if and only if."

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)