[EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?

[Adam Tarr]

I'll start by stating the colloquial definition of insanity (which I've 
heard attributed to Einstein): doing the same thing over and over again and 
expecting different results.  By this definition, we are quite insane to 
continue to respond to Paul, and vice versa.  Onward...

Paul Kislanko wrote:

>A wins in the example ONLY because the method discards the C>A votes

True

>because
>of the B>C>A set of ballots.

That is demonstrably false, as Steve has now pointed out twice.

>If we're trying to find something better than plurality, it needs to be
>demonstrably better, and of course this example gives exactly the same
>results as plurality, which is why examples aren't proofs.

Indeed they are not, which begs the question of why you are asking about 
examples.  Better to go to Steve's page where he proves properties of MAM 
in excruciating detail.

>But, to use the terminology and techniques y'all do, let's examine the
>BALLOTS that result if B is not a candidate:
>
>4: A>C
>5: C>A
>
>Adding B to the mix causes A to be elected, even though all voters who
>prefer B over anybody voted A third of the 3.

Congratulations!  You've proven that MAM fails IIA.  Big friggin' surprise 
there.

>So I ask again, if A should win, why should I prefer any method over
>plurality?

It's up to you to answer that.  But some methods satisfy properties that 
plurality fails, and I for one happen to value some of those properties.

-Adam