[EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

I'm not sure where exactly this is going.

Paul, I don't think anyone is saying you 'must' support MAM, or that 
everyone will like it.  If so, I agree that's silly.

I think the statement being made is that -- even given an unusual 
series of cyclic ties like this -- MAM gives an outcome least 
objectionable to the greatest number of people.  Not unobjectionable, 
just least objectionable.

The question I am curious about is whether you can think of a *better* 
system that would be more acceptable, or whether you just dislike the 
fact that MAM isn't perfect?

-- Ernie P.
Disclaimer: I advocate Maximum Majority Voting, which is a MAM 
derivative, so I consider MAM optimal (under criteria that matter to 
me).

On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:

> So?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
>> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
>> ] On Behalf Of Adam Hayek
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:23 PM
>> To: election-methods at electorama.com
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?
>>
>> The point of the example was to show the way the method
>> performed in an election where each and every person was
>> pairwise beaten by one of the others.
>>
>> A loses to C in 5/9 votes.
>> B loses to A in 6/9 votes.
>> C loses to B in 7/9 votes.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:50:34 -0500, Paul Kislanko
>> <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote:
>>> I KNOW most pairwise methods elect A in this example. But
>> pairwise A
>>> loses to C by a majority, so why do the methods elect A?
>>>
>> ----
>> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
>> for list info
>>
>
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info