[EM] Markus, 14 March, '05, 0510 GMT

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (29 Jan 1997):
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1997-February/001295.html
> GMC: Never elect a majority-rejected candidate (a candidate
> over whom someone else is ranked by a majority) unless
> every candidate in the set from the method is to choose
> is majority-rejected.

But now you wrote (11 March 2005):
> I've used that term [= "majority-rejected"], but it has
> no role in defining my criteria, and so It gives you no
> justification for your claim that my criteria apply only
> to MinMax.

Only the MinMax(winning votes) tie-breaking strategy satisfies
your "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).

Between 1996 and 1997, you used your concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates very frequently to define your "Generalized Majority
Criterion" (GMC) and to motivate the MinMax(winning votes) tie-breaking
strategy. It is clear why you now claim that you have never used this
concept to define your criteria: You want to claim that all your
criteria apply to all "winning votes" methods. You want the readers
to mistakenly believe that you proposed "winning votes" methods in
general and not only MinMax(winning votes).

Markus Schulze