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

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (10 Dec 2000):
> 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.

Plurality can be defined (and usually is defined in the academic
literature) on preferential ballots. You claim that as plurality
depends on LESS than the complete preferences of the voters
plurality cannot be defined on preferential ballots. But when
you re-think your argument then you will observe that only when
plurality depended on MORE than the complete preferences of the
voters plurality couldn't be defined on preferential ballots.
I don't think that the fact that you cannot see that plurality can
also be defined on preferential ballots demonstrates a problem of
the Condorcet criterion or beat path GMC.

You wrote (10 Dec 2000):
> 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.

And I am not the only person who believes that you are the last
person who can advise other people about how to write mails.

Markus Schulze