Markus--
I'd said:
I've used that term, but it has no role in defining my criteria, and so It gives you no justification for your claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax (whatever MinMax means).
You say: : Well, you introduced your concept of "majority-rejected" candidates in 1995 to motivate MinMax(winning votes).
I reply:
I wasn't aware that I'd advocated a method referred to me as MinMax. In '94, I proposed PC and Smith//PC.
I explained that proposal by pointing out that those methods are more free of need for preference-concealingl defensive strategy than non-wv methods are. That's as true now as it was then, though additional wv methods have been proposed, and Condorcetists now additionally advocate BeatpathWinner/CSSD, SSD, SD, and RP.
You continue:
You now claim that there was "no justification for your claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax". Well, I don't know which "criteria" you are talking about.
I replyi:
...whichever ones you thought could only apply to MinMax.
You continue:
You used your concept of "majority-rejected" candidates to motivate MinMax (winning votes) in 1995.
I reply:
I didn't "motivate" MinMax, though I did propose PC and Smith//PC, and told why they were better than anything other than wv.
You continue:
You didn't use your "strategy free" criteria (which have been introduced by you in 2000).
I reply:
From the very start, from the day when I proposed the "single-winnercommittee", which became EM, and from the first day that I proposed wv methods, I pointed out that the wv methods were much more free of need for preference-concealing, favorite-abandoning, defensive strategy than other methods are.
And very soon after my proposal of wv, I began using criteria that were early versions of SFC, WDSC, and SDSC.
The matter of what year it was when I introduced the latest versions of the majority defensive strategy criteria is hardly relevant to the matter of whether or not I proposed wv.
Nor is the fact that I'd used the term "majority-rejected". "Majority rejected" was never a criterion, and was never the main justification of wv. As I said, the main justification of wv has always been its much greater freedom from need for preference-concealing, favorite-abandoning, defensive strategy.
You continue:
I didn't say that I don't know what "CSSD" or "BeatpathWinner" means. I said that (in so far as both terms refer to the same method) I haven't yet understood when you use the term "CSSD" and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner".
I reply:
...and I don't understand what you mean when you say that. But that's ok. Let's agree to disregard that statement.
But, since you know what BeatpathWinner means:
Does BeatpathWinner meet the criterion that you recently posted to EM as your version of SFC?
Mike Ossipoff
Markus Schulze
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
