[EM] Re: Malfunctioning criteria

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Sat May 7 10:57:42 PDT 2005

Russ Paielli 6049awj02-at-sneakemail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> "Approval would pass CC if CC were defined votes-only, as you
> yourself said."
> Nonsense. Any reasonable definition of the Condorcet Criterion either 
> assumes that ranking is allowed or says so explicitly. CC applies to 
> ordinal methods only. Duh!

After thinking about it a bit more, I realized that my statement, "CC 
applies to ordinal methods only," could be misconstrued by legalistic 
pedants. Let me forstall their bleatings with a dose of common sense. 
Strictly speaking, CC applies to non-ordinal methods too, but they fail 
by *definition*.

If you never went to Harvard, then is it true that you "failed to 
graduate from Harvard"? Well, yes and no. You didn't graduate, but how 
could be said to "fail" if you didn't even try? The same applies to 
non-ordinal methods. You can say they "fail" CC, but then they didn't 
even try.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list