Anyone offering criteria should welcome criticism of them, without anger, just as Ive been doing. But sometimes something that you werent expecting takes you by surprise, and you lose your temper.
BC is a criterion, more than its Schulzes method dressed-up as a criterion. Thats because, if Schulzes method were a criterion, it would be met only by one method. A narrow criterion indeed. BC, on the other hand, is met by a set of methods (including, but certainly not limited to, Schulzes method.
But, though BC, even in its name, is called a criterion, I dont use it as a criterion, in the sense of offering it as something that I claim that you should want methods to comply with. Thats what FBC, SFC, GSFC, WDSC, and SDSC are. Theyre worded so as to tell why youd want their guarantee.
BC is for my own use. I dont offer it as a criterion. Thats why Benham caught me off-guard when he told me that BC, which Id been using, isnt useful. I hadnt recommended that Chris use it. Though I was ready for criticism of my criteria, I wasnt ready for criticism of how I, personally, determine compliances. It would be different if Chris had raised a validity-point about the compliance-determination. Thats why, as I said, Chris caught me off-guard, and I lost my temper. Before that, there hadnt been anger when I replied to objections and criticisms about my criteria. So I apologize that something hitting me from a different direction caught me off-guard and caused me to lose my temper.
Mike Ossipoff
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
