[EM] Name of this Criterion

[Markus Schulze]

Hallo,

 > sorry, but just on the surface this doesn't
 > seem right.
 >
 > for instance, a run-of-the-mill no-cycle Condorcet
 > case (actually it was IRV and the Condorcet winner
 > did not win) would be the Burlington 2009 election
 > most of us are familiar with.  in that case M=5.
 > now if you picked k=3 and chose candidate A to be
 > Kurt Wright (who was the plurality winner and neither
 > the IRV winner nor the CW), there is a set of (k-1)
 > candidates (those would be Smith and Simpson) that
 > Wright beat consistently.  yet he is not the overall
 > winner.
 >
 > you can go to the Warren Smith page or i can scarf
 > up the numbers from the defeat matrix again.
 >
 > how am i reading this wrong?

For k=3, this criterion says that, when a candidate
wins every 3-way election, then this candidate should
also be the overall winner.

So to be able to apply this criterion to Kurt Wright,
he would also have to win a 3-way election between
himself and (say) Montroll and Kiss.

Markus Schulze