Bob Richard wrote:
It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care a lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what it's called.
If true, that is unfortunate. Perhaps we would have to pick a better criterion that is also easy to understand, something like the (weak) Favorite Betrayal Criterion. But if we have to do that, then a lot of otherwise good methods go out the window.
On the other hand, both Nanson and Bucklin has been used in the US, and neither of these pass LNHarm.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
