[EM] Markus reply 0530 GMT Jan. 21

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 20 21:44:06 PST 2002

Markus asked:

I would like to ask how
you define "voting systems."

I reply:

It's reasonable to say that a voting system is a choice method
that bases its choice on voting. But I also admit that Random Candidate
could be called a degenerate voting system in which people can
vote, but their votes are ignored. Rather like the 2000 Presidential

Markus contined:

By the way: In your 9 Jan 2002 mail, you asked me which "method"
meets IIAC. You didn't ask me which "voting system" meets IIAC.

I reply:

Yes, and that's why I didn't say that you were wrong because
RC isn't a voting system. I merely said that RC isn't a voting
system. My implication was that, not being a voting system, RC
is less important.

Of course RC is commonly used as a tiebreaker,
and is important in that regard. Of course it isn't a good choice
for a tiebreaker in small committees or anywhere where there's
a significant likelihood of a tie. In public elections it's quite
harmless to use RC as the tiebreaker, since ties are vanishingly

Markus continued:

So if e.g. a "voting method" implies the Pareto criterion due to
your definition of "voting methods"

I reply:

Whoa, cowboy. Did I say that a voting system must meet the Pareto
Criterion? If you define voting systems in that way, Sequential
Pairwise wouldn't be a voting system. Not many would agree with
your definition.

Markus continued:

, then you should have asked
which method meets both Pareto and IIAC. Otherwise you must not
be angry when the answer doesn't satisfies you.

I reply:

Excuse me, but did I say anything about Pareto?

And I never said that I was dissatisfied with your answer that
RC & RB meet your IIAC. What I said was that your answer is mistaken,
because RB fails your IIAC. But I don't deny that RC meets your

Mike Ossipoff

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list