[EM] Re: fallacy

[Russ Paielli]

Chris Benham chrisbenham-at-bigpond.com |EMlist| wrote:
> Russ,
> Assuming that by  "drop" a candidate you mean  "eliminate, and drop from 
> the ballots, and then
> proceed as if the candidate had never existed", this is the big fallacy 
> in your last post:
> 
>> As you drop candidates, you cannot get a CW until only one member of 
>> the Smith set remains.  
> 
> 
> Without a pairwise tie, its not possible to have 2-member Smith set!
> 
> Chris  Benham

Chris,

Darnit, why didn't I think of that? Thanks for the correction.

I was going to post that message as a question, but I decided to just go 
ahead and state it as a fact. Live and learn.

An interesting question now is which of the two methods is preferable.

--Russ