[EM] Schwartz criterion

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
 > But my statement that you quoted, and that I quoted in the paragraph
 > before last is obviously true, even outside the context in which
 > I used it. It _is_ obvious that the members of an innermost unbeaten
 > set are uniquely deserving of winning.

It isn't obvious to me.  Is there another defense for this criterion,
beyond the defense of obviousness.

I reply:

Well what do you want a criterion to be defended in terms of?

Aren't a number of criteria, like Monotonocity, justified because
it's obvious that something should or shouldn't happen? But I
admit that the Schwartz Criterion doesn't have the kind of practical
importance for me as do the criteria relating to strategy need.
Neither does Participation, for instance.

Even Participation, which is violated by all the best rank-counts,
makes sense, and aesthetically counts against those methods, though
we all agree that that's far outweighed by their great practical
advantages.

Provided that important stratgegy criteria are met, I don't know
that there's a _practical_ need for the Schwartz Criterion, though its
aesthetic relevance is obvious, at least for conditions where a
method might fail it.

If we divide the candidates into two parts, and candidates in your
part beat candidates in the other part, but no one in the other
part beats anyone in your part, surely it's as obvious to you as
it is to me that it makes the most sense for the winner to come
from your part. Maybe the only justification for that is
intuitive or aesthetic.

Mike Ossipoff


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com