Dear Chris, you wrote (13 Feb 2005): > What is wrong with having a rule at the front of an > election method that says "eliminate, (or bar from > winning) all 'covered' candidates"? That would make > the method meet Pareto, so would there then still > be a problem separately resolving sub-cycles?
I am not aware of any single-winner election method that satisfies monotonicity and that guarantees that the winner is always chosen from the uncovered set. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
