Mike wrote: >In a recent posting I defined preference versions of both of those criteria, better because they're universally applicable.<
I'd say, universally incomprehensible. Like the rest of this post. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EM] BC, BeatpathWinner > > > I've noticed that, as Markus said, the fact that a candidate > doesn't have a > defeat that isn't in a cycle of defeats at least as strong as > it is doesn't > mean that that candidate is a winner of BeatpathWinner. > > As for the meaning of BC, it was a long time ago that I was > using BC to > demonstrate, on EM, and to website questioners, some methods' > compliance > with other criteria. More recently, I've believed that BC > says to not elect > a candidate who has a majority defeat that isn't in a cycle > of majorilty > defeats. Markus says that BC instead says to not elect a > candidate who has a > defeat that isn't in a cycle of defeats at least as strong as > it is. I'd > have to check to find out which it is. Believing that the > former was BC, I > defined the latter recently, as an improvement. > > In a recent posting I defined preference versions of both of > those criteria, > better because they're universally applicable. Obviously, > those 2 criteria > and their preference versions, and majority rule and majority > wishes, as I > define them, and SFC and GSFC are all related. > > Mike Ossipoff > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for > advice on how to > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info