typo

[Mike Ositoff]

In my Tideman bad-example, I said that A beats C. Actually
C beats A, with 5 votes-against.

Also, I forgot to tell what I don't like about Tideman's
reason for electing B instead of C in that example:

C loses to B for no other reason than because A & D lose to B.

Because the cycle in which B wins is the cycle with the biggest
defeats, the cycle of the biggest losers, that means that
B wins for sure, since its only defeat, the one in that
big-losers' cycle has been skipped. 

If my interpretation of Tideman's method is correct, it's
doing something quite irrational.

And if that "skip" is only intended to apply with respect to
the cycle that made the skip, then that should have been stated
in the rules. As I said, that added rule adds messiness to
an already messy procedure, and adds complexity.

Even without that problem, Tideman has neither the merit of
Schulze nor the simplicity of Condordet(EM) or Smith//Condorcet(EM).

But with that problem, or even with the extra rule to get rid
of that problem, Tideman becomes still less competitive with
the best methods.

Mike Ossipoff