Markus said:
Here, Mike Ossipoff proposes a subcycle rule:
[...]
Here, Mike Ossipoff proposes another subcycle rule:
[...]
I reply:
I doubt that I proposed those subcycle methods. I mentioned some possible methods based on subcycles, and that was around �96. It seems to me that I made a point of clarifying that I was not proposing those methods, and that I was mentioning them because it was of interest what would be the price of accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish.
Likewise, last summer I mentioned a method that meets the strongest majority defensive strategy criterion. But the price for that was that the method was indecisive, because offensive order-reversers could keep preventing anyone from winning. Then too, I clarified that I wasn�t proposing that method, but was merely discussing what it would take to meet the strongest majority defensive strategy criterion.
Having never advocated those subcycle methods, I still don�t advocate them. But Pareto compliance isn�t as essential as some think. Sequential Pairwise violates Pareto, and Sequential Pairwise is very widely used, and isn�t bad in meetings. If that method that meets the strongest majority defensive strategy criterion merely violated Pareto, then it might be worth considering.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
