My replies below resulted from mistakenly believing that Jameson was referring
to
preference criteria in general, when, actually, he was referring to his one or
two
preference criteria that he'd proposed in a recently previous posting:
J: Let's forget about those criteria
[endquote]
M: Suit yourself, Jameson.
J: , because apparently the fact that they
are bad criteria is distracting from the issue here.
[endquote]
M: Jameson pronounces them "bad criteria" :-)
M: So make that claim, Jameson needs to be specific about what he
thinks is wrong with those criteria, and why.
Yes, certainly Jameson's one or two criteria in the previous post were "bad",
because they weren't defined. He didn't say what he meant by "votes for A".
The best guess for what that means is "marks A on a Plurality-style ballot".
1. That would mean that Jameson's criterion only applies to a limited subset
of methods.
2. There could be a count rule that says that the candidate with the fewest
Plurality-style marks wins.
3. But Jameson didn't specify that, or any other meaning for "votes for A".
Additionally, a reasonable guess about what that term means, all methods
would fail the criterion, making the criterion not useful.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
