[EM] Blake misread the Schulze/Woodall test?; How exactly?

[Blake Cretney]

Recall that Markus said:

> there is a paper by Woodall in which he demonstrates that
> no preferential single-winner election method can meet the
> following four properties simultaneously [Douglas R. Woodall,
> "An impossibility theorem for electoral systems," Discrete
> Mathematics, vol. 66, p. 209-211, 1987]:

On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
> 
> 
> At 22:41 04.11.00 -0800 Saturday, Blake Cretney wrote:
> > I just don't
> > see
>  >remarks like
>  >
>  > > Property 3 ought be rejected too since it wrong for all
>  > > elections
>  > > with 0 winners.
>  >
>  >as being worthy of comment.
> 
> If you want to constrain the number of elements in a set then you
> have to do it explicitly. Do you try to suggest by the actual words
> that you used, that whatever you feel or believe is inherent and
> factual in any formula you see?.

Markus said that Woodall's paper was for "single-winner" elections. 
Single winner elections have exactly one winner.  

> Obviously criticising me as being closed minded is another area
that
> needs a skilled hand or it will fail. Blake wrote "your statement
> suggests to me is that you have no interest in our arguments."
Blake
> didn't make an argument, did you Blake.

I certainly try to avoid personal criticisms.  Notice that I did not
use the phrase "close-minded".  I simply quoted something you had
said about open-mindedness, and stated that it summed up your opinion
on the subject.

Although I made no attempt to restate the usual arguments in favour
of Condorcet, I did suggest where you might find them.

> If you will not then I will write to the list owner and
> inform that human that I am not gaining your compliance.

Dear Human List Owner,

Writing-unit, designation Blake Cretney, does not comply.  He must be
assimilated.

Resitance is Futile,
Craig Carey

---
Blake Cretney