<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Marcus,</DIV>
<DIV>You wrote (25 Dec. 2008):</DIV>
<DIV><BR>"Dear Chris Benham,<BR><BR>you wrote (25 Dec 2008):<BR><BR>><I> "I had already proposed this criterion in 1997."<BR></I>><I> Why then do you list it as "Woodall's CDTT criterion"<BR></I>><I> instead of your own "Generalised Majority Criterion"?<BR></I>><I><BR></I>><I> Did, as far as you know, Woodall ever actually propose</DIV>
<P></I>><I> the "CDTT criterion" as something that is desirable for</I></P>
<P><I></I>><I> methods to meet (instead of just defining the CDTT set)?<BR>
</I><BR>Woodall's main aims are to describe and to investigate<BR>the different election methods. Compared to the<BR>participants of this mailing list, Woodall is very<BR>reluctant to say that some election method was good/bad<BR>or that some property was desirable/undesirable."</P>
<P> </P>
<P>That is true, but nonetheless the short answer to my second question<BR>is 'no'. To quote Douglas Woodall (with his permission) from a recent</P>
<P>email (19 Dec 2008):</P>
<P> </P>
<P>"I defined the CDTT set as a means towards constructing election methods </P>
<P>with certain mathematical properties. My memory for such things is not good, <BR>and I am open to correction, but as far as I recall I never suggested that for the </P>
<P>winner to belong to the CDTT was particularly desirable, and I never suggested </P>
<P>this as a criterion. So although calling it "Woodall's CDTT criterion" is an<BR>understandable shorthand, it is somewhat misleading."<BR></P>
<P>So can we agree that there isn't really such a thing as "Woodall's CDTT criterion"</P>
<P>and what you have given that label to is your own Generalised Majority Criterion </P>
<P>(GMC) that is equivalent to "the winner must come from the defined-by-Woodall</P>
<P>CDTT set"?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I'm sorry if this seems excessively nitpicking, and I'm not suggesting you intended</P>
<P>to mislead with your "understandable shorthand".</P>
<P> </P>
<P>In my soon-to-follow next post I will explain why I think the GMC is a mistaken</P>
<P>standard.<BR></P>
<P>Chris Benham<BR></P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P><BR> </P></div><br>
<hr size=1>
Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. <a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/galaxy/mail/tagline2/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox" target=_blank>Take a look</a>.</body></html>