[EM] Markus, 1 March, ´05 , 1800 GMT

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

I wrote (27 Feb 2005):
> I interpret Mike Ossipoff's "Strategy-Free Criterion" (SFC)
> and "Generalized Strategy-Free Criterion" (GSFC) as follows:
>
> "X >> Y" means that a majority of the voters strictly prefers
> candidate X to candidate Y.
>
> SFC: Suppose (1) A >> B and (2) the partial individual
> rankings can be completed in such a manner that candidate A
> is a Condorcet candidate. Then candidate B must be elected
> with zero probability.
>
> GSFC: Suppose (1) A >> B and (2) the partial individual
> rankings can be completed in such a manner that candidate A
> is in the Schwartz set and candidate B is not in the Schwartz
> set. Then candidate B must be elected with zero probability.

You wrote (1 March 2005):
> I don't know where you got that. If you were trying to write
> SFC with different letter-designations, you'd say that A is
> the CW, not that the partial individual rankings can be
> completed in such a manner that A is a CW.
>
> Additionally, you left out the requirement that no one
> falsifies a preference.
>
> Additionally, you left out the stipulation that the members
> of that majority vote sincerely.
>
> So, if you don't mind, I'll be the one to define my criteria.
> However, I invite you to define any criteria you want to,
> including the one written by you that I quoted above. It
> isn't SFC, but we can call it Markus's Non-SFC.
>
> The same objections that I stated for your Non-SFC apply to
> your Non-GSFC. But, additionally, you have changed the sincere
> Smith set to the Schwartz set. The Schwartz set is different
> from the Smith set. And the sincere Smith set differs even
> more from the Schwartz set, because the sincere Smith set
> is about preferences, while the Schwartz set is about voting
> results.
>
> So your Non-GSFC differs from GSFC even more than your
> Non-SFC differs from SFC.

Please post a concrete example whether your formulation and
my formulation differ (i.e. an example where your formulation
is satisfied and my formulation is violated or where your
formulation is violated and my formulation is satisfied).

Markus Schulze