[EM] Simpson-Kramer

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

however, at least when each voter casts a complete ranking
of all candidates then the Simpson-Kramer method is identical
to what you call "Plain Condorcet". This cannot be said about
Condorcet's proposals (who, by the way, doesn't discuss partial
individual rankings either). So after all, you didn't give any
justification why you call this method "Plain Condorcet(wv)"
and not "Simpson-Kramer(wv)".

By the way: Most of the terminology (e.g. "Copeland set",
"Smith set", "Schwartz set") that is used in this mailing list
comes from a paper by Fishburn ("Condorcet Social Choice
Functions", SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, vol. 33,
pp. 469--489). Also Fishburn presumes that each voter casts
a complete ranking of all candidates. He writes on page 470
of his paper:

> It will be assumed throughout that all voters have linear
> preference orders on the candidates or alternatives so that
> individual indifference between distinct candidates does not
> arise.

So if you really wanted to be consistent you wouldn't use
Fishburn's terminology either.

Markus Schulze