Truncation Resistance #2 criterion (was Re: First Choic

[Hugh Tobin]

Mike Ossipoff wrote:
> 
> Hugh Tobin writes:
[snip]
> >
> > Finally, let me suggest that making Steve's second example a litmus test
> > (even with the reasonable exception), and implying that a "Condorcet"
> > system would not elect A (despite his large plurality and the weak
>[snip]
> > results of B and C), would unnecessarily detract from the much more
> > important Condorcet criterion and could put off those who otherwise
> 
> That's a bizarre statement. How would that detract from the
> Condorcet Criterion? The Condorcet Criterion, by itself,
> isn't adequate. So if we add another criterion, you call
> that detracting from the Condorcet Criterion?
> 
> So no one can apply any other criterion, because that
> would "detract from" the inadequate Condorcet Criterion?
> 
> > might support some version of Condorcet against the raft of inferior
> > alternatives.  =
> [snip]

I thank Mike for his gentle correction of my inexact language.  I should
have said "distract attention" instead of "detract."
By the way, in Mike's response my posting had a number of odd
characters, perhaps because I composed it in Word, though the text was
clean in my mailbox.  If anyone else got a bad copy I apologize, and if
anyone would like me to try to repost a cleaner one, please let me know.


-- Hugh Tobin