[EM] Smith//PC , GSFC, & SDSC

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (7 Oct 2000):
> Markus wrote (7 Oct 2000):
> > Which properties are necessary and sufficient for an example for being
> > an example showing that a given election method violates GSFC? Which
> > properties are necessary and sufficient for an example for being an
> > example showing that a given election method violates SDSC?
>
> Again, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I've demonstrated that
> Tideman(wv) meets GSFC & SDSC, and that Smith//PC doesn't. Any examples
> that comply with the example outlines that I posted for Smith//PC
> will be sufficient to show that Smith//PC fails GSFC & SDSC.
>
> In general, any example that complies with the premise of a
> criterion, and in which the method being tested doesn't meet the
> requirement of the criterion will be sufficient to show that that
> method fails the criterion. Also, such an example is necessary to show
> that. In fact, that's what it takes to show that any method fails
> any criterion. For more detail, I refer you to the definitions of
> the criteria.

Why does your 5 Oct 2000 example demonstrate that Smith//PC
fails GSFC and SDSC?

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de