[EM] Guarding the Instant Runoff movement (Our Mike is mentioned)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

>Donald's offenses are harmless compared to the insults of a
>certain other person of this mailing list.

Markus, you got ruffled because I pointed out that your
Beatpath GMC definition needed work. My purpose wasn't to insult
you or pick on you, or to single-out Beatpath GMC. You shouldn't
be so defensive that you get upset because I point out a problem
with your criterion definiton.

My purpose, in commenting on your BPGMC definition, was to use
it to show a larger problem with some criteria definitions that are
in common use. If widely-used academic criteria definitions have
problems, then that can be of interest to EM.

That's because it's surely of interest how voting systems are
evaluated and how their merit is compared. So if there's something
wrong with criteria that are in wide use, that's worth bringing up.

I said that as Condorcet is usually defined either all methods fail
it, or Plurality meets it. Then you told me of an unstated assumption
that you say is behind their criteria defintions and yours. Something
about assuming that voters vote ratings, even with voting systems
that don't use ratings or collect them. Then I pointed out that
your specification of how your procedure is done is incomplete.
I didn't say that to insult you. I just mentioned it because it's
a fact, and to try to get you to better specify the procedure that
you were talking about.

There was no intent to insult you. In any case, though, I'm not the
only person here who believes that you aren't the one to be
talking about manners here.

Mike Ossipoff

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com