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

[Markus Schulze]

Dear participants,

Mike Ossipoff wrote (7 July 2001):
> So are you making the silly claim that when there's a pair-tie,
> then initially there's no opinion at all? In fact, then there
> can never be an opinion, unless you also believe that Condorcet
> wanted us to write an X>Y opinion when there isn't one.

Even when there are only two candidates X and Y and there is a
pairwise tie between these two candidates, exactly one of these
two candidates must be elected. This is a matter of fact and not
a "silly claim". When the opinion "X > Y" and the opinion "Y > X"
each have the same probability, then this doesn't mean that
"there's no opinion at all".

Mike Ossipoff wrote (7 July 2001):
> Did Condorcet say that there have to always be n(n-1)/2
> propositions, and that a proposition has to say one candidate
> is better than another?

Condorcet explicitely wrote that there are exactly 2^(n*(n-1)/2)
opinions. Therefore, it is clear (1) that an opinion consists of
exactly n*(n-1)/2 propositions and (2) that a pairwise tie is not
a proposition.

Markus Schulze