[EM] BC, BeatpathWinner

[Paul Kislanko]

Mike wrote:
>In a recent posting I defined preference versions of both of those
criteria, 
better because they're universally applicable.<

I'd say, universally incomprehensible. Like the rest of this post. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:01 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] BC, BeatpathWinner
> 
> 
> I've noticed that, as Markus said, the fact that a candidate 
> doesn't have a 
> defeat that isn't in a cycle of defeats at least as strong as 
> it is doesn't 
> mean that that candidate is a winner of BeatpathWinner.
> 
> As for the meaning of BC, it was a long time ago that I was 
> using BC to 
> demonstrate, on EM, and to website questioners, some methods' 
> compliance 
> with other criteria. More recently, I've believed that BC 
> says to not elect 
> a candidate who has a majority defeat that isn't in a cycle 
> of majorilty 
> defeats. Markus says that BC instead says to not elect a 
> candidate who has a 
> defeat that isn't in a cycle of defeats at least as strong as 
> it is. I'd 
> have to check to find out which it is. Believing that the 
> former was BC, I 
> defined the latter recently, as an improvement.
> 
> In a recent posting I defined preference versions of both of 
> those criteria, 
> better because they're universally applicable. Obviously, 
> those 2 criteria 
> and their preference versions, and majority rule and majority 
> wishes, as I 
> define them, and SFC and GSFC are all related.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for 
> advice on how to 
> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>