I just noticed that I made (at least) one error in my description of pairwise methods. I wrote:
>Unfortunately, it would be very tedious/impractical to >hold a series of separate two-way elections between all the available >options, since the number of elections needed is equal to the square of the >number of options under consideration (10 options -> 100 elections). Of course, this is incorrect -- when there are n options, a total of n*(n-1)/2 pairwise elections are required. Not much point in having candidates run against themselves, or holding each election twice! Sorry about that. Norm Petry
