[EM] Majority winner set

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

I have already said in a different context (23 Sep 2000)
that I use the concept that election methods are defined
on the reported von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities of the
voters. But in your reply (23 Sep 2000) you wrote that
this concept was "funny," "incomplete," "undefined,"
"vague" and "not precise." Now you write that this
concept was also "sloppy" and "dishonest."

If you didn't refuse to read scientific literature then you
would observe that the concept that election methods are
defined on the reported von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities
of the voters is widely used and that e.g. Gibbard and
Hylland use this concept for their impossibility theorems.

When you think that this concept is "vague," "sloppy" and
"dishonest" then you are invited to introduce your own
concept and to explain why you think that your own concept
might be better. But unless you have done this, you have to
live with the fact that the concept that election methods
are defined on the reported von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities
of the voters is widely used.

However, I don't have the impression that your statements have
anything to do with majority winner sets or beat path GMC.

Markus Schulze