[EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?

[Paul Kislanko]

You may not take it that Paul has conceded anything since nobody's ever
answered the original question.

5 of 9 voters voted C>A. 

Paul's question is how can anyone justify A's win.

No one has addressed that. Until they do, ad hominems are just an example of
how unlikely it will be to convince voters to change election methods. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of Steve Eppley
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: RE: [EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?
> 
> Hi,
> Paul K wrote:
> > Steve E wrote:
> >> " All we know is that they _preferred_ a defeated candidate."
> > 
> > The candidate wasn't "defeated" by the voters, it was only 
> "defeated" 
> > by the METHOD.
> 
> Candidate C was defeated by the combination of the voting 
> method and the ballots cast by the voters.  
> 
> I take it that Paul has conceded he cannot justify calling 
> the C>A voters "unhappy."
> 
> > If you look at my original analysis of the "election", my 
> question was 
> > why should the 33 percent of the voters who voted A LAST cause A to 
> > win.
> > 
> > No one who has attacked me has addressed that.
> 
> Yes I did.  I pointed out that if those 33% of the votes were 
> deleted, then A would still win.  
> 
> I also asked Paul to clarify what he meant. (At least, I 
> thought I was asking him to clarify when I wrote that I 
> didn't yet understand his concern.)  Paul, how did those 33% 
> cause A to win?
> 
> --Steve
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>