Dear Mike, you wrote (21 Nov 2000): > Plurality doesn't have rank balloting. Plurality isn't just a > count rule to be applied to rank-ballots. Plurality, like any > voting system, is a combination of a balloting system and a > count rule. I don't agree with you that the ballot design is a part of the election method. To my opinion, the ballot design --especially questions like (1) how the candidates have to be sorted on the ballot, (2) whether there should be party affiliations, (3) whether there should be write-in options, (4) whether there should be a NOTA option, (5) what should be done when NOTA is chosen or (6) whether the ballots should be counted by hand or by computer-- is a part of the electoral law but not of the election method itself. However, I don't have the impression that your statements have anything to do with majority winner sets or beat path GMC. Markus Schulze
- RE: [EM] Majority winner set LAYTON Craig
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Bart Ingles
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Bart Ingles
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Majority winner set Markus Schulze
