I want to clarify that I'm aware that I've defined these strategies in terms of both sincere preferenes and voted preferences. In terms of the CW, which is defined in terms of sincere preferences; and majority rule, which I define in terms of actual votes.
That's intentional. There could be a case for tallking instead about majority preference, but majority votes are usually what people are tallking about when they say "majority rule". Besides, the methods that fail badly don't have any trouble violating majority rule by the stronger definition that I use.
By the way, it may seem odd to define majority rule in terms of cycles, even for non-pairwise-count methods. But really, what could nullify a majority defeat except a cycle of them?
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
