Ok, Markus, but what would you say to a suggestion that we count the ballots by Tideman(wv) and by BeatpathWinner, and then hold a 2nd balloting so people can vote which of those 2 winners they prefer? That sounds democratic to me. Now, instead, we could count the ballots by both methods, but instead of holding a 2nd balloting, we just determine which method's winner pairwise-beats the other. But say, for reasons of simplicity, we aren't permitted to count the ballots by 2 methods. Then, the best we can do toward the goals in the previous paragraphs would be to use the count rule that usually picks someone who pairwise-beats the other count rule's winner. As for Copeland, of course Copeland would likely do very well in winner comparisons. But, as Steve pointed out, the fact that we have more important criteria doesn't mean that, when those criteria are met by 2 methods, doesn't mean that we're forbidden to then consider winner comparisons. None of us advocate Copeland, of course. If EM ever needs to vote on something, a good system might be to count the ballots by BeatpathWinner and by Tideman(wv), and choose the winner that pairwise-beats the other. 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.
