[EM] Markus, "majority-rejected", and some Markus opinions

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

I wrote (6 March 2005):
> In my recent mails, I wrote that Mike Ossipoff's concept
> of "majority rejected" candidates cannot be used for other
> election methods than MinMax.

You wrote (7 March 2005):
> But which of my criteria use the term "majority-rejected"?

Did I say that one of your criteria uses the term "majority-
rejected"? You used the concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates when you proposed MinMax(winning votes). In your
26 Feb 2005 mail, you claimed that you didn't only propose
MinMax(winning votes), but that you proposed "winning votes"
methods in general. You wrote (26 Feb 2005): "He [= David
Gamble] asked who first proposed the wv Condorcet methods.
I'd proposed the wv Condorcet methods." But your concept
of "majority-rejected" candidates cannot be used for other
methods than MinMax. Therefore, the fact that you proposed
your concept of "majority-rejected" candidates to motivate
MinMax(winning votes) doesn't support your claim that you
proposed "winning votes" methods in general.

You wrote (7 March 2005):
> Does BeatpathWinner meet your criterion that you posted
> as an alternative wording for SFC?

To be honest, I haven't yet understood when you use the term
"CSSD" and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner". (To the
other readers: Both terms are only different names of the
Schulze method.) In the past, you used to prefer the term
"CSSD". So is there a special reason why you don't ask?:
"Does CSSD meet your criterion that you posted as an
alternative wording for SFC?"

Markus Schulze