I was only asking for an answer to one question. Y'all kept changing the subject and attacking me.
Good luck with your proposals - by attacking your prospective friends and calling your opponents names you will make plurality permanent. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of Eric Gorr > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [EM] Does MAM use the Copeland method? > > At 2:43 PM -0700 10/6/04, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: > >Paul, I don't think anyone is saying you 'must' support MAM, or that > >everyone will like it. If so, I agree that's silly. > > > >I think the statement being made is that -- even given an unusual > >series of cyclic ties like this -- MAM gives an outcome least > >objectionable to the greatest number of people. Not > unobjectionable, > >just least objectionable. > > Well said! > > >The question I am curious about is whether you can think of a > >*better* system that would be more acceptable, or whether you just > >dislike the fact that MAM isn't perfect? > > Good question. > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
