[EM] Markus, 14 March, '05, 0510 GMT
MIKE OSSIPOFF
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sun Mar 13 21:16:41 PST 2005
Markus--
I'd said:
>"Majority rejected" was never a criterion.
Wrong. It was one of your criteria. You called this
criterion "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).
I reply:
But, in that case, the criterion was GMC, not "Majority Rejected".
Anyway, GMC came years after the majority defensive strategy criteria that
were early versions of SFC, WDSC, & SDSC, and years after I'd first proposed
wv.
In any case, what's your point? I don't request an answer to that question.
I merely ask it so that you'll consider it. What relevance does a criterion
that I defined long afterward have, in regard to the question of whether or
not I proposed wv? Again, no need for you to answer that.
GMC favors PC, but it applies to all methods. Smith Criterion methods fail
GMC. PC passes GMC. I no longer use GMC, because my other criteria are more
suitable for my goal, which I've already stated here.
But, last summer, I defined a criterion that was somewhat similar to GMC.
Again, I'd have to check the archives to reliably state it, but, as Earl
Scruggs said, it goes something like this: If a majority prefer X to Y and
vote sincerely, Y shouldn't win.
That could be regarded as a great strengthening and simplification of SFC or
GSFC.
That's the ultimate majority defensive strategy criterion, and I was
interested in whether it could be met, because it's of interest how good a
method can be.
I posted to EM the question of whether or not that criterion is meetable.
Then I posted the answer to my question: It's meetable, but at a high cost
in decisiveness. It's indecisive in the sense that offensive order-reversers
could keep preventing anyone from winning. I described a method that meets
that criterion, but I didn't propose it, due to its indecisiveness.
So, if you want to criticize a criterion of mine, why not criticize that
more recent one, instead of GMC, which I no longer use (and which I defined
long after I'd proposed wv and defined the criteria that were early versions
of SFC, WDSC, & SDSC).
Or you could wait and crtiticize my definition of majority rule, when I post
it, after I get caught up with EM e-mail. As I said, at that time I'll also
state a new definition of majority-rejected, since you seem to like that
term.
By the way, does BeatpathWinner meet the criterion that you posted as your
version of SFC?
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list