[EM] Chris, DD, 23 March

[Paul Kislanko]

> 
> The term  "defeat-dropper" is  a self-explanatory
> newly coined (perhaps slang) reference to the pairwise
> methods that "drop defeats", such as Ranked Pairs,
> Beat Path, River etc.that are all equivalent when
> there are three candidates. SCRIRVE and Raynaud are
> examples of Condorcet methods that are not
> "defeat-droppers". 

That it is not self-explanatory is evidenced by that fact that I have asked
before for folks to be more clear in their descriptions of proposed methods
whether they mean "drop ballot contributions that resulted in a defeat" or
"drop the candidate based upon number of defeats in the pairwise matrix." It
is not at all clear what "defeat dropper" means, since my eye dropper
doesn't dispense defeats. 

> 
> > Plurality passes Non-Drastic Defense. Suppose that
> "to rank" means " to rank in a rank-balloting system".
> In that case, no one can write a Plurality example
> that complies with the premise of Non-Drastic Defense.
> That means that no one can write a Plurality NDD
> failure example, and that Plurality passes NDD. 
> 
> Yes, and by that logic, so does a pork chop.

Exactly. So by LOGIC the definition of non-drastic defense is either a
universal truth (like "pork chops exist") or is untestable. If it is
untestable it is useless from an anylitical standpoint, and if it is a
universal truth it should be called an axiom, not a criterion.