In a message dated 8/12/05 3:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> --Actually, as a math PhD, what I understand is that the > Condorcet criterion is NOT "already well-defined" This mystifies me. I've long understood the Condorcet criterion to mean that if one candidate would defeat all others in one to one contests, that candidate is the Condorcet winner. None of the definitions you cited, despite their differences and imprecisions in wording, is inconsistent with this understanding as far as I can tell. I also don't see how a math PhD would have any reason to interpret this differently, or that regarding the meaning of the Condorcet criterion, being a math PhD is any justification for claiming to see distinctions that others don't see, since the math required is elementary arithmetic. It's kind of like saying that someone who knows 50 languages can understand English sentences better than English only speakers can. It's possible, of course, but far from certain, and in any case it's not for one multi-language speaker alone to decide, since other multi-language speakers might disagree. -Ralph Suter ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info