When the iteration that Steve described for Iterative-Condorcet is applied to Plurality or Bucklin, it seems to me that the resultling methods are better than ordinary Bucklin, but not as good as ordinary Condorcet (By "ordinary", I mean without the iterative feature added). And it seems to me that Iterated Plurality & Iterated Bucklin don't meet the meet-able the criteria that I consider important & have been rating methods by (GMC, LO2E-1 & LO2E-2). Maybe this is the place to add that it seems to me that a likely good rule to add to Iterative Plurality would be to stop the count when 1 or more alternatives has a vote total at least equal to half the number of voters, and award the election at that time to the alternative with the most votes (as in IR-1). I've previously claimed that Bucklin is the best of the methods that are easily hand-counted in large elections, but now I believe that Iterative Condorcet & Iterative Bucklin are the most deserving of that title, of the methods that I've heard of so far. Since ordinary Bucklin, itself, is iterative, being a stepwise Approval, the 2 levels of iteration could make it confusing to the public, or to organizations to which it is offered. So Iterative Plurality seems the method to recommend for an easily hand-counted method for large elections. Not that there's a need for hand-counting of elections nowadays, even in organizations. Any organization big enough to have enough voters & candidates to make hand-counting difficult would surely have many members with computers, who could do a computerized count. So not only is easy hand-counting not relevant to public elecions anymore, but it probably isn't even a requirement for organizations, and so the title of "best easily hand-counted method for large elections" is something with more curiosity interest, or academic interest only, unless one is recommending to a large organization that isn't willing to use a computer in its count. I should add that anything said this early about merits of those newly defined methods is tentative, but I believe the statements I've made about that in this letter are correct and could be demonstrated if necessary. My reason for posting about the merit of those methods is that I previously said I didn't know about it, and I didn't want the matter to remain completely un-commented-on. Mike --