[EM] Paul: True, I said mutually contradictory things

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Paul--

You wrote:

I specifically quoted your email where you said "my definition only applies
to my criterion".

You did not answer that question, instead you now claim that your definition
is in fact, universal.

I reply:

Yes, sorry about that.

First, I emphasize that this is a side-issue not related to the validity, 
precision, usefullness or applicability of my criteria. It's must a matter 
of curitosity, a subject for conversation:

I now say that my sincere voting definition applies meaningfully to all 
voters and ballots. If someone votes X over Y while preferring Y to X, 
there's nothing wrong with saying that isn't sincere voting, regardless of 
whether it's unavoidable for that voter because of his/her intransitive 
preferences.

Saying that the vote is not sincere doesn't say anything about the voter's 
character or intentions. It contains no implication that the voter is being 
intentionally dishonest.

This matter of intransitive preference in no way affects the validity, 
precision or applicability of my criteria. My criteria apply uniformly and 
seamlessly to all methods. Yes, an example with intransitive preferences is 
an example that some of my criteria won't look at, but it's always possible 
to write a failure example with transitive preferences.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/