[EM] Markus, 2 March, '05, 1317

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You said:

You are the only one who defines criteria in terms of sincere
preferences and not in terms of cast preferences.

I reply:

That probably isn´t strictly true. Some academic authors have defined the CW 
as the candidate who´s win every pairwise comparison if we used rank 
balloting and everyone voted their actual preferences...and then defined the 
Condorcet Criterion by saying that the CW should always win. At least it 
seems to me that I´ve run across that. No, I couldn´t say where, or who said 
it. But it isn´t important. Maybe it´s true that no one else has ever 
defined a voting system criterion that mentions preferences.

Of course that particular Condorcet Criterion version described in the 
previous paragraph is unmeetable, but that´s beside the point.

But yes, for the most part, I´m the only one who defines criteria that 
mention preference. However, I´m not the only one who uses such criteria. 
Sometimes the preference version of the Mutual Majority Criterion is used by 
others. They use it because they don´t want the problems that go with the 
votes-only versions.

You continued:

Why should
anybody define criteria in terms of sincere preferences only
because you do that?

I reply:

How should I know why you should define criteria in terms of sincere 
preference only because I do that?

If _you_ feel that you should, then that´s good enough. You don´t have to 
ask me for a reason.

I´ve often repeated that I encourage you to define criteria however you want 
to.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/