Markus--
I'd said:
"Majority rejected" was never a criterion.
Wrong. It was one of your criteria. You called this criterion "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).
I reply:
But, in that case, the criterion was GMC, not "Majority Rejected".
Anyway, GMC came years after the majority defensive strategy criteria that were early versions of SFC, WDSC, & SDSC, and years after I'd first proposed wv.
In any case, what's your point? I don't request an answer to that question. I merely ask it so that you'll consider it. What relevance does a criterion that I defined long afterward have, in regard to the question of whether or not I proposed wv? Again, no need for you to answer that.
GMC favors PC, but it applies to all methods. Smith Criterion methods fail GMC. PC passes GMC. I no longer use GMC, because my other criteria are more suitable for my goal, which I've already stated here.
But, last summer, I defined a criterion that was somewhat similar to GMC. Again, I'd have to check the archives to reliably state it, but, as Earl Scruggs said, it goes something like this: If a majority prefer X to Y and vote sincerely, Y shouldn't win.
That could be regarded as a great strengthening and simplification of SFC or GSFC.
That's the ultimate majority defensive strategy criterion, and I was interested in whether it could be met, because it's of interest how good a method can be.
I posted to EM the question of whether or not that criterion is meetable. Then I posted the answer to my question: It's meetable, but at a high cost in decisiveness. It's indecisive in the sense that offensive order-reversers could keep preventing anyone from winning. I described a method that meets that criterion, but I didn't propose it, due to its indecisiveness.
So, if you want to criticize a criterion of mine, why not criticize that more recent one, instead of GMC, which I no longer use (and which I defined long after I'd proposed wv and defined the criteria that were early versions of SFC, WDSC, & SDSC).
Or you could wait and crtiticize my definition of majority rule, when I post it, after I get caught up with EM e-mail. As I said, at that time I'll also state a new definition of majority-rejected, since you seem to like that term.
By the way, does BeatpathWinner meet the criterion that you posted as your version of SFC?
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
