Re: 'Concorde' Voting Method and Circular Ties
I just noticed that I made (at least) one error in my description of
pairwise methods. I wrote:
>Unfortunately, it would be very tedious/impractical to
>hold a series of separate two-way elections between all the available
>options, since the number of elections needed is equal to the square of the
>number of options under consideration (10 options -> 100 elections).
Of course, this is incorrect -- when there are n options, a total of
n*(n-1)/2 pairwise elections are required. Not much point in having
candidates run against themselves, or holding each election twice!
Sorry about that.