<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpf082985dyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Saari named the criterion already. As Kristofer pointed out, my proposed method would fail Condorcet, but deliberately. I'm not sure what criteria it might pass or fail generally, but I think it's interesting to look at other methods that might pass Saari's criterion, since the Borda Count is pretty terrible.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpc24fbe8eyahoo_quoted_9793145919" class="ydpc24fbe8eyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Sunday, 12 December 2021, 16:56:58 GMT, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">On 12.12.2021 17:35, Colin Champion wrote:<br clear="none">> Is "independence of cycles" not the same as Saari's "neutral Condorcet<br clear="none">> requirement"? (mentioned in Risse's paper "Why the Count de Borda cannot<br clear="none">> beat the Marquis de Condorcet"). The matter is discussed in Pacuit's<br clear="none">> Stanford Encyclopedia article. He refers to ballots "cancelling<br clear="none">> properly" and mentions a proof that "there is no Condorcet consistent<br clear="none">> voting method that cancels properly".<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I wasn't aware of that paper but yes, now that I've looked at the<br clear="none">definition, you're right.<div class="ydpc24fbe8eyqt3663359693" id="ydpc24fbe8eyqtfd15407"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">-km<br clear="none">----<br clear="none">Election-Methods mailing list - see <a shape="rect" href="https://electorama.com/em " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em </a>for list info<br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>