Dear Mike, you wrote (4 March 2005): > In one posting I said that there are several possible reasons why you say > my criteria are undefined: > > 1. They aesthetically displease you. > 2. They're non-traditional, and you're a loyal follower of tradition. > 3. You can show that they're ambiguous in their wording, or that there's > a situation in which > they're ambiguous in their answer as to whether or not some method > passes or fails. > > In a recent e-mail you said that the criteria are undefined because one > [traditionally] doesn't define criteria mentioning preferences. Criteria, > you said, [traditionally] may only mention votes, which you call "cast > preferences". > > So that's why I say that you've answered my question about why you think > my criteria are undefined. The answer is answer number two: You believe > that my criteria are undefined because they're non-traditional, and > you're a loyal follower of tradition.
Well, you haven't even answered my question which model you use. Your 2 March 2005 mail ("[EM] Kevin, 2 March, '5, 1425 GMT") suggests that you use the resolute model. (The "resolute model" says that for every possible profile the winner is determined in advance.) However, your 3 March 2005 mail ("[EM] No, Random Candidate doesn't meet FBC (as of now)") suggests that you don't use the resolute model. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info