[EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

[Blake Cretney]

"MIKE " <nkklrp at hotmail.com>, on the subject of 'Re: [EM] Condorcet
Criterion for plurality.', is quoted as:

>In my previous posting about this, yesterday, I made it clear that
>I'm not saying that Plurality can't be defined in Markus's
contrafactual
>way. I merely said that it's sloppy, shabby, & funky when a criterion
>can't be made to apply to all methods without inventing a different
>definition for some of them.

Criteria and method definitions are just tools to help the analysis of
methods.  A person has something they want to achieve in a method, so
they write a criterion that they feel expresses the principle, but in a
strict pass/fail form.  Then they must justify the relation between the
principle and the criterion, and the desirability of the principle
itself.

I think we're in danger of treating a criterion as if it was something
between a manifesto and a contract:  believing that like a manifesto, it
must be worded to make the definition itself seem desirable, and like a
contract, it must be written to prevent any possible misuse.

If you find that a given definition of plurality passes a particular
definition of the Condorcet Criterion, or Independence from Irrelevant
Alternatives, it doesn't make any sense to say GOTCHA, I've found a
loop-hole.

Criteria are only useful if they can be justified.  If you want to use
different criteria in different circumstances, there must be some
justification for your doing so, but it isn't necessarily "sloppy".

---
Blake Cretney