[EM] This is what I'm talking about: Your suggestion to replace SDSC

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

I wrote (5 Feb 2004):

> I don't know what you are talking about. I still don't know what
> you mean with "your 'SDSC'". I don't remember that I have proposed
> a criterion and called it "SDSC" recently.

You wrote (5 Feb 2004):

> You'd said that my criteria could be reworded so as to not mention
> sincere preferences, only mentioning actual cast votes.
>
> I asked you to write such a criterion.
>
> You said a few things about SDSC and then said this:
>
> I would 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.

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

Markus Schulze