Correction: PD (Pairwise Dropping) doesn't exist!

[Norman Petry]

Just a correction.  For some reason (which I don't really understand), I've
been saying things like:

>I should have thought of that.  Given that PD satisfies Smith, I'd say we
>can safely scrap Condorcet(EM) and Smith//Condorcet(EM).  This leave just
>two "best" methods (in no particular order):
>
>- Pairwise Dropping
>- Schulze
>
>Use Pairwise Dropping for simplicity, and Schulze for absolute best
results.

That should have been _Sequential_ Dropping, not "Pairwise" Dropping  (what
was I thinking?!).  I've noticed that a number of my previous posts have
been using this alternate name, which I invented somewhere along the way.
Neither of these names are very attractive, but the last thing we need are
*two* bad names for the same (very good) method!

Sorry for the confusion.


Norm Petry