[EM] Markus, 14 March, '05, 0510 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

I'd said:

>"Majority rejected" was never a criterion.

Wrong. It was one of your criteria. You called this
criterion "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).

I reply:

But, in that case,  the criterion was GMC, not "Majority Rejected".

Anyway, GMC came years after the majority defensive strategy criteria that 
were early versions of SFC, WDSC, & SDSC, and years after I'd first proposed 
wv.

In any case, what's your point? I don't request an answer to that question. 
I merely ask it so that you'll consider it. What relevance does a criterion 
that I defined long afterward have, in regard to the question of whether or 
not I proposed wv? Again, no need for you to answer that.


GMC favors PC, but it applies to all methods. Smith Criterion methods fail 
GMC. PC passes GMC. I no longer use GMC, because my other criteria are more 
suitable for my goal, which I've already stated here.

But, last summer, I defined a criterion that was somewhat similar to GMC. 
Again, I'd have to check the archives to reliably state it, but, as Earl 
Scruggs said, it goes something like this: If a majority prefer X to Y and 
vote sincerely, Y shouldn't win.

That could be regarded as a great strengthening and simplification of SFC or 
GSFC.

That's the ultimate majority defensive strategy criterion, and I was 
interested in whether it could be met, because it's of interest how good a 
method can be.

I posted to EM the question of whether or not that criterion is meetable. 
Then I posted the answer to my question: It's meetable, but at a  high cost 
in decisiveness. It's indecisive in the sense that offensive order-reversers 
could keep preventing anyone from winning. I described a method that meets 
that criterion, but I didn't propose it, due to its indecisiveness.

So, if you want to criticize a criterion of mine, why not criticize that 
more recent one, instead of GMC, which I no longer use (and which I defined 
long after I'd proposed wv and defined the criteria that were early versions 
of SFC, WDSC, & SDSC).

Or you could wait and crtiticize my definition of majority rule, when I post 
it, after I get caught up with EM e-mail. As I said, at that time I'll also 
state a new definition of majority-rejected, since you seem to like that 
term.

By the way, does BeatpathWinner meet the criterion that you posted as your 
version of SFC?

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/