[EM] Re: Bucklin

[Gervase Lam]

> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:45:11 -0500
> From: "Paul Kislanko"
> Subject: [EM] RE: Bucklin

> I still don't see why A+=B>others is any different from A>B>others. 

OK.  Another way to describe A+=B>others is A>B>>others, which is not
quite the same as A>B>others.

For a moment, having the '+' the way you described seemed a bit daft to
me.  But it then gave me a sort of idea of a "backwards" method.  I
haven't the brain power at the moment to invent one, but is there a
method where all of the rankings are collapsed (i.e. the pluses are
ignored) and if there is still not a result, the rankings in people's
ballots are expanded?

Or may be if an existing method can be reworded in such a way as to have
the rankings expanded rather than collapsed?

Thanks,
Gervase.