Ernie--
The method that you described is Schwartz PC.
Here's how it differs from SSD:
You sequentially drop weakest defeats from the _initial_ Schwartz set. SSD sequentially drops weakst defeats from the _current_ Schwartz set. Dropping defeats removes candidates from the Schwartz set, because a candidate can't be in the Schwartz set merely by tying one of its members.
So, after a few defeats have been dropped, you're dropping defeats from candidates whom SSD no longer considers to be in the Schwartz set.
Different people will speak of different differences, but for me the main difference between Schwartz PC and SSD & MAM is that SSD and MAM have been shown to meet GSFC & SDSC. Schwartz or Smith PC has only been shown to meet SFC & WDSC.
No one's shown that PC does or doesn't meet GSFC or SDSC.
In public elections the initial Schwartz & Smith sets are identical, because there are no pairwise ties.
The Smith set is more briefly defined, and so I prefer Smith PC to Schwartz PC as a public proiposal.
I haven't dropped Smith PC as a public proposal. It has criterion advantages over PC, mostly cosmetic criterion differences, but they could matter in a campaign. It all depends on what people are found to like. I'd start by offering SSD & MAM, then SD, Smith PC, then PC.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
