Bart Ingles wrote:
> Sequentially dropping the weakest candidate probably helps reduce the
> chances of electing the "wrong" candidate (some Condorcet tie breakers
> presumably drop weakest defeats for the same reason).
It probably wasn't very clear what I meant by this statement. What I
meant was that sequentially dropping the weakest candidate probably
reduces the effects of having an imperfect definition of "weakest". The
opposite -- using the criterion to choose the "strongest" candidate
directly -- would give us the Plurality winner.
