[EM] Is "Inverse Nanson" better than standard Nanson?

[Richard Moore]

Michael Rouse wrote:

 > I'm sorry, I should have said "pairwise-comparison" 
methods. I consider
 > most pairwise-comparison methods to be Condorcet-like, 
even if they have
 > a different completion method than suggested by 
Condorcet. I was just
 > emphasizing that the Borda count, which gives points 
based on a
 > candidates ranking (and which does *not* always select 
the Condorcet
 > winner), can be used iteratively to find Condorcet 
winners and losers
 > with a completely different method. *And* it gives a 
single winner/loser
 > even if the candidates are in a circular tie.

As someone -- I forget who -- pointed out here some time
ago, you can calculate Borda results from a pairwise matrix.
Just add the figures in each column (or row, depending on
how you organize your matrix). This assumes the matrix
contains counts of all votes, not just winning votes. So,
it could be deemed a pairwise method.

Richard