[EM] The criterion you suggested is inconsistent with your "motivation" for it.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You said:

That's Steve Eppley's "minimal defense" criterion. I copied the
definition from his website (http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~seppley).

I reply:

But here's what you'd said:


>I would call

You didn't just quote Steve. You said that _you_ would call  one paragraph 
the motivation and another paragraph the criterion definition.

Plurality fails the requirement stated in your "motivation". Plurality 
passes your criterion, in the next paragraph. I don't care where you copied 
that critrerion. You said that you'd call that the criterion definition.

Your criterion doesn't make the requirement that your "motivation" says that 
you want the criterion to make.

Obviously there isn't much point in stating a motivation and then posting a 
criterion that doesn't make the requirement that the motivation says that 
you want. I'm merely bringing it to your attention that that is what you've 
done. No doubt it was done mistakenly, and I'm just letting you know about 
your error.

I quote below your "motivation" and the criterion definition that you copied 
and said that you'd call the criterion definition:

You said:

I'd call

>
>    "If more than half of the voters prefer alternative y over
>    alternative x, then that majority must have some way of voting
>    that ensures x will not be elected and does not require any of
>    them to rank y equal to or over any alternatives preferred over y."
>
>the "motivation" of this criterion and
>
>     "Any ordering of the alternatives must be an admissible vote,
>     and if more than half of the voters rank y over x and x no higher
>     than tied for bottom, then x must not be elected."
>
>the "definition" of this criterion.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Keep up with high-tech trends here at "Hook'd on Technology." 
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/hookedontech.armx