Mr. Cretney wrote in part- The inversing makes the method more confusing, and I doubt it improves on Nanson+'s properties. In particular, I suspect the method violates monotonicity and clone independence. It clearly violates reversal symmetry. So, I think I'll stick with Ranked Pairs, at least until some desirable properties are proven for inverse Nanson. --- D- For the newer folks I must note certain clone math. 51 A > B 49 B > A 100 Choice C comes along. C can be ranked ahead or behind of A or B (the four combinations). If C is ranked ahead of both A and B in *all* cases, then the A-B set is a 100 percent clone set of C. 51 C > A > B 49 C > B > A 100 In other words, ANY additional choice may show that the existing choices of it are clones to various degrees (and vice versa) -- i.e. from a bare majority to 100 percent. I note that math purists claim that a clone is supposed only to be adjacent to the a choice and to be 100 percent defeated by such choice-- such as 100 D > E --- E is a (100 percent) clone of D. Thus even with only 2 choices (as with the starting A and B above), there may be a clone element. Without an *absolute* rating by a voter, it is generally impossible to tell whether or not a choice ranked after another choice is a clone of the earlier choice or an *opposite*. That is -- a voter votes- Hitler > Stalin Is Stalin a tyrant clone or an opposite ?? Due to the above, I again bring up the necessity in even a *semi-accurate* election method of having BOTH *absolute* and *relative* votes --- showing up in *at least* a Condorcet (head to head) table, a YES/NO table and a Place Votes table. Happy birthday U.S.A. --- 225 years old tomorrow -- especially in trying to determine the *Consent of the Governed* in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
