Dear Mike, I wrote (27 Feb 2005): > Well, you proposed MinMax(winning votes). But you didn't > propose a general concept that could also be used for > other methods than MinMax. Therefore, it cannot be said > that you proposed "winning votes" in general.
You wrote (28 Feb 2005): > You say that I proposed MinMax, but which MinMax are you > saying that I proposed? MinMax(winning votes). You wrote (28 Feb 2005): > I proposed wv as a general class of methods, and pointed > out its advantages and benefits, long before you joined > EM or proposed Schulze's method. Well, you wrote that a candidate B is "majority rejected" when there is another candidate A such that a majority of the voters strictly prefers candidate A to candidate B. You wrote that the used election method shouldn't unnecessarily elect a "majority rejected" candidate. This criterion led to election methods like MinMax(winning votes) or RMDD. But it cannot be said that with this criterion you "proposed wv as a general class of methods". Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
