Mike, --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You replied: > > That would be missing the point. If WDSC makes a meaningful guarantee, there > shouldn't be a silly, meaningless way of satisfying it. > > I reply: > > WDSC doesn't make a guarantee, meaningful or otherwise. Methods that comply > with WDSC make a meaningful guarantee.
> Yes, WDSC is really a minimum requirement for a barely adequate method. > What's wrong with defining a modest bare minimum requirement? > >Kevin continued: > > > >As a first > >guess, I suggest: "If a majority of all the voters vote A in first or equal > >first, and B in last or equal last, then B mustn't win." If that doesn't > >resemble Mike's intention > > > >I reply: > > > >...and it doesn´t resemble WDSC. > > But it implies WDSC, is easier to check, and doesn't allow silly methods of > compliance. > > I reply: > > When you say that your criterion implies WDSC, you mean that compliance with > it implies compliance witih WDSC. That doesn't mean that your criterion is > valuable, or should be considsered as a substitute for WDSC. Above you call WDSC a "minimum requirement for a barely adequate method." So why would you doubt that my *stricter* version of WDSC is valuable or useful? Actually, I don't believe WDSC or my stricter version are very useful. Kevin Venzke __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info