[EM] Markus's latest

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (20 Jan 2002):
> Markus wrote (20 Jan 2002):
> > Unless you consider it "offensive", "blather", and "idiotic crap"
> > to ask how you define "voting systems", I would like to ask how
> > you define "voting systems."
> >
> > 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.
> > So if e.g. a "voting method" implies the Pareto criterion due to
> > your definition of "voting methods", 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.
>
> 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
> that definition. Excuse me, but did I say anything about Pareto?

It seems that you don't know what "e.g." means.
"E.g." means "exempli gratia" ("for example").

******

You wrote (20 Jan 2002):
> 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
> election.

The problem is that when you have problems understanding a mail or
when you don't agree with someone or when you are dissatisfied with
a mail, then you spam the EM archieves with tons of insulting mails
instead of trying to describe your problems/disagreement/dissatisfaction.
If you had described earlier how you define "voting systems", then I
would have mentioned that David Catchpole has proposed a modification of
Random Candidate where --when a Condorcet winner exists-- this Condorcet
winner is elected with a probability of 2/(N+1) and every other candidate
is elected with a probability of 1/(N+1) and where --when no Condorcet
winner exists-- each candidate is elected with the same probability of
1/N. This modification of Random Candidate is a "voting system" due to
your definition of "voting systems" and meets IIAC.

Markus Schulze