Markus gave an example outline, and then said: >Could you please demonstrate that such a scenario isn't possible? No, I can't do that for you. Your example outline sounds perfectly possible, doesn't it? But note that the combo wasn't one of my suggestions in my most recent message. I said that if Tideman(wv) & BeatpathWinner were the only methods under consideration, it would make the most sense to simply vote between those two. And I said that, if those aren't the only methods considered, then I'd suggest Voter's Choice. I suspect that Tideman(wv) & BeatpathWinner are the most popular rank-counts on EM. But if we were going to vote on what method to use for subsequent votes on EM, I'd advocate Voter's Choice as thew way to choose. Because, when we consider the list members who aren't the most active posters, and when we don't limit our consideration to rank methods, it isn't at all clear that it's only a choice between Tideman(wv) & BeatpathWinner. By the way, as I said in a reply to Demorep, I think there's a question about how truncated rankings should be interpreted. The voter should be able to indicate whether he means his ranking to only compare its ranked candidates, or whether he also means to say that his ranked candidates are better than his unranked candidates. The question is which of those interpretations should be the default interpretation. Surely it would be better if the voter didn't have to actively make that choice. But what should it be taken to mean if he says nothing about which interpretation he wants? In other words, which is the natural one that deserves the benefit of the doubt? Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
