Dear Mike,
you wrote (16 Sep 2000):
> I asked you if you agree or disagree with my claim about
> what it means to say that a method complies with a
> criterion that refers to some candidates by letter
> designations and speaks of a way of voting that's
> available to certain voters. You haven't answered
> whether or not you agree with my claim about what that
> means. I asked you, if you don't believe it means what
> I say it means, then what do you think it means to
> say that a method complies with such a criterion?
> You haven't answered that either. You claim that the
> criteria are ambiguious, but you don't know what
> you think it means to say that a method complies
> with such a criterion.
Suppose someone says: "If every voter strictly prefers
candidate A to candidate B then candidate B must not be
elected." How would you interpret this requirement? To
fulfill this requirement, is it necessary that the
statement above is met for each pair of two candidates
simultaneously? Or is it sufficient that the statement
above is met for just one pair of candidates? Or is the
requirement ambiguous?
Markus Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
