[EM] Here's what I mean with "your error":

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You said:

In so far as I have copied the text from Steve Eppley's
website, ...

I reply:

It's irrelevant where you copied the criterion. I don't care how you made 
your error. The matter of whether you were in error depends on whether that 
criterion is equivalent to SDSC. It isn't. You were in error.

You continued:

I don't know what you mean with "your criterion"
or "your error".

I reply:

Then I'll tell you again what I mean by 'your error":

You posted a criterion (which you copied from Eppley), and, with it you 
wrote your motivation for it. But the criterion is inconsistent wit your  
motivation, since Pluralitiy passes that criterion (at least with one 
interpretation of the first sentence, which could have more than one 
interpretation).

Combining a criterion with a "motivation" that the criterion doesn't agree 
with--that's the error.

But Chris has pointed out another interpretation of the first sentence, 
which could keep Plurality from passing the criterion. Therefore, as 
written, it can't be established whether or not Plurality passes the 
criterion.

The 1st sentence says that all orderings must be admissible. That could be a 
statement that the criterion applies only to examples in which all orderings 
voted are admissible ones. In that interpretation, that sentence isn't a 
requirement about the method's rules; it's a requirement about the voting.

But Chris has pointed out that that sentence could be interpreted as a 
requirement about the method's rules, a requirement that the method's rules 
must be such that every possible ordering is admissible under the method's 
rules. If that's what it means, then that disqualifies Plurality from 
passing the criterion.

That sentence could equally well have either of those 2 meanings. So, as I 
said, it turns out that it cant be determined whether or not Plurality 
passes that criterion.  And that means that it also can't be determined 
whether or not you were in error when you combined that criterion with your 
motivation--or does it?....

Did Chris save you? No, because he also proposed a bizarrely unproposable 
method in which we ask people to vote rankings, and then award the election 
to the candidate who is ranked 1st on the most ballots. He's mistaken to 
call that method "Plurality", but that's not relevant here. What's relevant 
is that that method passes the criterion that you posted, but it doesn't 
pass SDSC.
That means that the criterion that you posted is not equivalent to SDSC. And 
that means that you were in error to suggest that criterion as an equivalent 
replacement for SDSC.

So yes you were in error. And no it doesn't matter where you copied the 
criterion from.

You continued:

Do you want to say that Steve erred when
he wrote?: "... Another wording is nearly equivalent: ..."

I reply:

No, I don't want to say that, because, as you quoted him, Steve said 
"_nearly_ equivalent".

But you suggested that criterion, with your motivation, as an equivalent 
replacement for SDSC.

So you, not Steve, were in error. Don't try to pass your error off on the 
person from whom you copied the criterion. You're the one who suggested  it 
as equivalent to SDSC.

In fact, when I said that the votes-only criterion that I posted is 
equivalent to my Condorcet's Criterion, that isn't true either, since 
Chris's strange ranked Pluralitiy would pass that votes-only criterion 
without passing my Condorcet's Criterion.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to write votes-only criteria that are 
equivalent to my criteria that mention sincere preference &/or sincere 
voting, only that the criteria suggested so far don't accomplislh that. But 
when one does, it probably won't directly and obviously address the concerns 
that I want to address, and will require a motivation explanation, and so I 
probably won't adopt it.

Markus, you're too defensive. You made an error. Accept it. Everyone has 
made a mis-statement at some time. It doesn't mean that you've lost your 
"honor". You only lose that when you lie. In this message I'm not addressing 
the issue of whether that has taken place.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963