[EM] My definition better carries out P&P's intent

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

Thank you--I'd only read their initial verbal definition of Regularity.
I didn't know that they'd define it more thoroughly somewhere else.
It would have been nice if they'd mentioned that, after the
initial verbal definition.

So yes, they do define Regularity more thoroughly than that
verbal definition.

I suggest that my Regularity criterion definition carries out P&P's
intent better than their own Regularity criterion does, unless you believe 
that for some reason they intend that the criterion shouldn't
be applied to methods whose balloting is cardinal.

I'm not saying that their
criterion, as defined by them, doesn't apply to CR. But it doesn't
make sense in the way that it applies to CR.

Additionally, my definition is
much better expressed. For one thing, it's brief & self-contained,
not relying on long definitions that limit the balloting type, and
which must be found elsewhere.

Regularity:

Deleting a candidate from the election's ballots, and then recounting
those ballots, should never decrease the win-probability of an
undeleted candidate.

[end of definition]

Mike Ossipoff




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com