[EM] Majority winner set

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (21 Nov 2000):
> It seems to me that no method can meet that criterion. Say, for
> instance, that the method is BeatpathWinner, defined in terms
> of actual voted preferences. Maybe the voter believe that they
> have a situation where they need defensives truncation, and so
> they don't vote all of the preferences that they feel. (It's
> also possible that some voters merely might not have time to
> rank all of the candidates, or don't feel like expressing
> preferences for disliked candidates over more disliked ones--
> there are some voters who might feel that way).
>
> Then those people's preferences won't translate into actual
> voted preferences on the BeatpathWinner ballots. BeatpathWinner
> is defined in terms of voted preferences rather than felt
> preferences, and your criterion is defined in terms of felt
> preferences. You told me that a criterion shouldn't be defined
> in that way. Of course you could specify that if some voters
> have certain sincere preferences and vote sincerely, then a
> certain result must happen. In that way your criterion would
> be meetable, without being met by Plurality, as it would be
> if you merely defined it in terms of voted preferences.

Beat path GMC is defined in terms of voted preferences.
Beat path GMC is met e.g. by Schulze(wv):
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/harrow/124/methods.html

Markus Schulze