[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 2024-04-22 01:11, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> To me it is not that the pairwise losing candidate "deserves to be
> eliminated" but that within the logic of IRV it's intuitive that that
> candidate shouldn't need to play a role, affecting things, if they're doomed
> to lose. (Or perhaps it's just me who thinks that's intuitive.)
> 
> In contrast the "beats all" winner concept would be a bridge too far,
> because while there might be a candidate who can win every final pairing,
> IRV imposes additional requirements to get to that point, so nothing is
> assured about that status.
> 
> But if the audience doesn't know IRV then it would be harder for me to find
> an argument for RCIPE.

Trying not to spam, but I also forgot to say: Copeland-elimination 
should be Condorcet and it works like RCIPE in the absence of any lower 
cycles. (Break the tie by first preference count when there is a cycle.)

-km