Steven Barney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I don't know your definition of "Cardinal Pairwise," but that could be >another name for the Borda Count.
I don't like the Borda count at all, at least not for use in contentious elections. Here are a few reasons why I don't like the Borda count: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/voting_methods/antiborda.htm Cardinal pairwise is definitely not another name for the Borda count. In short, it uses ordinal information (rankings) to measure the direction of pairwise defeats, and it uses cardinal information (ratings) to measure the strength of pairwise defeats. I argue that the method provides more meaningful resolution to sincere majority rule cycles, and helps to prevent severe strategic incursion. You are invited to read a short paper about cardinal pairwise, which I wrote last summer. Here are some links to the paper in pdf format and html format. (The fourth link is a version of the paper published by Voting Matters.) http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.pdf http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp21.pdf http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE19/ISSUE19.PDF my best, James P.S. A google search for "cardinal pairwise" would have given you most of the links above. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info