[EM] Re the "official" definition of "condorcet"

[RLSuter at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/12/05 3:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
election-methods-electorama.com-request at electorama.com writes:

> --Actually, as a math PhD, what I understand is that the
> Condorcet criterion is NOT "already well-defined"

This mystifies me. I've long understood the Condorcet criterion
to mean that if one candidate would defeat all others in one to one
contests, that candidate is the Condorcet winner. None of the
definitions you cited, despite their differences and imprecisions
in wording, is inconsistent with this understanding as far as I
can tell. I also don't see how a math PhD would have any reason
to interpret this differently, or that regarding the meaning of the
Condorcet criterion, being a math PhD is any justification for
claiming to see distinctions that others don't see, since the math
required is elementary arithmetic. It's kind of like saying that
someone who knows 50 languages can understand English
sentences better than English only speakers can. It's possible,
of course, but far from certain, and in any case it's not for
one multi-language speaker alone to decide, since other
multi-language speakers might disagree.

-Ralph Suter