Dear Dave! You wrote: > Agreed you do not need (n-1)*n/2 pairwise comparisons BUT, seems to me > ROWS went too far: > It will happily and efficiently return the CW if there is one. > It does not know if there is a cycle, though the winner of the n-1 > comparisons will, at least, be a cycle member. > > Easiest I can think of is another n-1 comparisons to see if the apparent > winner is CW or only a cycle member and, if a member, keep going til you > have the complete cycle.
That's a nice suggestion for the "justification" step of the method but it doesn't change the winner. Or did you mean to say that a method should not elect a candidate unless it "knows" in which defeat cycles s/he is? Yours, Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
