[EM] RE : Re: Clone proofing Copeland

Chris Benham chrisjbenham at optusnet.com.au
Wed Jan 3 23:45:12 PST 2007

Brian Olson wrote:

> On Jan 3, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Chris Benham wrote:
>> But what is wrong with my suggestion of first dropping from the 
>> ballots the non-members of  the 
>> Schwartz set?
> It then becomes Instant Runoff by Schwartz Set. Nothing wrong with 
> that except as with all instant runoff methods it is no longer 
> summable and requires multiple passes through the whole set of votes. 
> In this case two passes. First pass, find the Schwartz set, second 
> pass find the highest ranked votes among that set.


Thanks for your reply. In this context what is your definition of  an 
"instant runoff" method? 

Is it just any method that isn't "summable"?

Chris Benham

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list