Dear Mike, you wrote (27 Feb 2005): > Markus doesn't like the mention of preference > in a criterion, and implies that it's somehow > necessarily imprecise. (...) Markus, you might > not like it when criteria mention that voters > prefer one candidate to another, and maybe the > journal authors don't write such criteria. But > those things don't mean that it's unclear for > a criterion to mention preference.
I said that criteria should be defined on the _cast_ preferences and not on the _sincere_ preferences. I didn't say that criteria shouldn't be defined on preferences at all. You wrote (27 Feb 2005): > You still haven't said why you think that my > criteria are unclear. I would say that WDSC, SDSC, and FBC are rather _undefined_ than _unclear_. You wrote (27 Feb 2005): > For instance, I demonstrated why Approval passes > WDSC, and why margins Condorcet fails WDSC. When > compliances and noncompliances can be clearly and > undeniably demonstrated, then that's the only kind > of clarity that a criterion really needs. Can you > name a plausible situation in which it would be > difficult to say whether or not a method meets > one of my criteria. Then please demonstrate whether my method (aka Schwartz sequential dropping, cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping, beatpath method, beatpath winner, Schulze method) satisfies FBC. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
