[EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?

[Steve Eppley]

Hi,

Paul K wrote:
> Any argument that begins with "perhaps they..." is a 
> speculation, not an argument. From the ballots, 55.555556
> percent of the voters preferred a candidate that was not
> elected.

But that's what I'd pointed out:  All we know is that 
they _preferred_ a defeated candidate.  Paul had claimed
they were also _unhappy_ and I gave a reason why they 
might not be unhappy.  The burden is on Paul to explain 
why he claimed they'd be unhappy.

I prefer Milky Way candy bars over Three Musketeers, but 
it won't make me unhappy to be given a Three Musketeers 
bar.

In a separate message, Paul also wrote:
> For the same set of ballots, pairwise comparisons result 
> in a different winner based upon which voting method is
> employed. So which one you use is an article of faith,
> not reason. 

Most pairwise methods elect A in that example.  Copeland 
is the only pairwise method I know that doesn't, and it 
returns a 3-way tie.  Copeland//Plurality, the method 
advocated by Bruce Anderson--the only member of this 
list who, to my knowledge, ever advocated any variation 
of Copeland--also elects A.

Assuming Paul had his argument straight, that is, if 
he'd cited an example where good pairwise methods do 
pick different winners, his conclusion that which one 
of these methods to use is an article of faith rather 
than reason makes some sense to me, given that we cannot 
empirically determine which method is best.  We can only 
make educated guesses based on speculative arguments, 
and see which of these arguments resonates with enough 
people to convince them to give the method a try.  

In yet another message, Paul called it the Borda method
to use graded ballots such as A+, A, A-, B+, etc.  He's
made so many odd claims today, I must request he send
me some of whatever he's been imbibing.

--Steve