<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Kristofer,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You wrote (Sun.Nov.23):</DIV>
<DIV>"Regarding number two, simple Condorcet methods exist. Borda-elimination <BR>(Nanson or Raynaud) is Condorcet. Minmax is quite simple, and everybody <BR>who's dealt with sports knows Copeland (with Minmax tiebreaks). I'll <BR>partially grant this, though, since the good methods are complex, but <BR>I'll ask whether you think MAM (Ranked Pairs(wv)) is too complex. In <BR>MAM, you take all the pairwise contests, sort by strength, and affirm <BR>down the list unless you would contradict an earlier affirmed contest. <BR>This method is cloneproof, monotonic, etc..."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Raynaud isn't Borda-elimination. It is Pairwise Elimination, i.e. eliminate<BR>the loser of the most decisive or strongest pairwise result (by one measure or</DIV>
<DIV>another) until one candidate remains. You may have instead meant to write <BR>"Baldwin",though some sources just talk about 2 different versions of Nanson.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Simpler and much better than any of those methods are Condorcet//Approval</DIV>
<DIV>and Smith//Approval and Schwartz//Approval ,in each case interpreting </DIV>
<DIV>ranking as approval and so not allowing ranking among unapproved candidates.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Chris Benham</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV></div><br>
<hr size=1>
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. <a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/hppromo/mail/tagline2/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline" target=_blank>Enter now</a>.</body></html>