Is "Inverse Nanson" better than standard Nanson?

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Cretney wrote in part-

The inversing makes the method more confusing, and I doubt it improves
on Nanson+'s properties.  In particular, I suspect the method violates
monotonicity and clone independence.  It clearly violates reversal
symmetry.  So, I think I'll stick with Ranked Pairs, at least until
some desirable properties are proven for inverse Nanson.
---
D- For the newer folks I must note certain clone math.

51 A > B
49 B > A
100

Choice C comes along.
C can be ranked ahead or behind of A or B (the four combinations).

If C is ranked ahead of both A and B in *all* cases, then the A-B set is a 
100 percent clone set of C.

51 C > A > B
49 C > B > A
100

In other words, ANY additional choice may show that the existing choices of 
it are clones to various degrees (and vice versa) -- i.e. from a bare 
majority to 100 percent.

I note that math purists claim that a clone is supposed only to be adjacent 
to the a choice and to be 100 percent defeated by such choice-- such as 100 D 
> E --- E is a (100 percent) clone of D.

Thus even with only 2 choices (as with the starting A and B above), there may 
be a clone element.

Without an *absolute* rating by a voter, it is generally impossible to tell 
whether or not a choice ranked after another choice is a clone of the earlier 
choice or an *opposite*.

That is -- a voter votes-

Hitler > Stalin

Is Stalin a tyrant clone or an opposite ??

Due to the above, I again bring up the necessity in even a *semi-accurate* 
election method of having BOTH *absolute* and *relative* votes --- showing up 
in *at least* a Condorcet (head to head) table, a YES/NO table and a Place 
Votes table.

Happy birthday U.S.A. --- 225 years old tomorrow -- especially in trying to 
determine the *Consent of the Governed* in the second paragraph of the 
Declaration of Independence.