[EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?

[Paul Kislanko]

I was only asking for an answer to one question. Y'all kept changing the
subject and attacking me.

Good luck with your proposals - by attacking your prospective friends and
calling your opponents names you will make plurality permanent. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Gorr
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:19 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method?
> 
> At 2:43 PM -0700 10/6/04, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> >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.
> 
> Well said!
> 
> >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?
> 
> Good question.
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>