RE: [EM] Russ, 1 March, ´05, 1850 GMT

[Paul Kislanko]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:06 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Russ, 1 March, ´05, 1850 GMT
> 
> I´d said:
> 
> >Markus doesn´t like the mention of preference in a 
> criterion, and implies 
> >that it´s somehow necessarily imprecise. I don´t agree. Here 
> are a few 
> >approaches to the meaning of preference:
> 
> I can't read Markus's mind, but I suspect that his objection is not so
> much to the definition of "prefer" but rather to the fact 
> that it refers
> to a state of mind of the voters separate from the *actual* 
> votes cast.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> That´s pretty much what Markus has said. But Markus must 
> distinguish between 
> the following things:
> 
> 1. Something doen´t aesthetically appeal to Markus
No. The only problem here is that when someone asks MIKE to clarify
something he resorts to ad hominems instead of answering the question.

> 2. Markus dislilkes something non-traditional because Markus 
> is a loyal 
> follower of tradition.
No. The Problem is that MIKE can't express himself unambiguously.

> 3. A criterion is undefined, or is not well-defined.
> 
> I repeat that if anyone believes that a criterion of mine 
> isn´t defined, or 
> isn´t well-defined, then he is invited to post to EM a situation 
> (configuration of candidates, voters, and 
> votrers´preferences), in which it 
> isn´t possible to definitely say whether a certain method 
> passes or doesn´t 
> pass that criterion.

The EM list would prefer that you define your terms more precisely. If we
can't figure out what you mean by a term because you use the language
carelessly, it is NOT up to the reader to convince the writer that the
writer's message wasn't conveyed clearly.