Just a correction. For some reason (which I don't really understand), I've been saying things like: >I should have thought of that. Given that PD satisfies Smith, I'd say we >can safely scrap Condorcet(EM) and Smith//Condorcet(EM). This leave just >two "best" methods (in no particular order): > >- Pairwise Dropping >- Schulze > >Use Pairwise Dropping for simplicity, and Schulze for absolute best results. That should have been _Sequential_ Dropping, not "Pairwise" Dropping (what was I thinking?!). I've noticed that a number of my previous posts have been using this alternate name, which I invented somewhere along the way. Neither of these names are very attractive, but the last thing we need are *two* bad names for the same (very good) method! Sorry for the confusion. Norm Petry
