[EM] Non-preference ICC definition--does it go someting like this?

Michael Ossipoff mikeo2106 at msn.com
Sat Jan 27 03:35:23 PST 2007

I’ve already mentioned this on EM:

Earl Scruggs, in a concert, introduced, described and explained a song that 
he was going to sing. Then he said:

“And it goes something like this--in fact, it goes _exactly_ like this: …”

I’ll have you know that I was the honcho of single-winner voting system 
criteria J  but that was before my retirement, and I’ve been away from the 
subject for a while.

How about something like this:

To vote X between Y and Z, when voting Y over Z, means to vote Y over X, and 
X over Z.

I’ve previously  defined voting one candidate over another, but it’s a 
plausible definition that I needn’t look up and re-post.

A clone-set is a set of candidates between whom no one has voted any other 

After an election , count, and winner-determination, deleting some, but not 
all, members of a clone-set from those ballots, shouldn’t change the matter 
of whether or not the winner comes from that clone set.

[end of possible non-Preference ICC definition]

It seems to me that that was the non-preference ICC definition that was the 
only one I’ve heard agreement on. In fact the only ICC definition that I’ve 
heard agreement on.

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list