> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EM] Russ, 1 March, �05, 1850 GMT > > I�d said: > > >Markus doesn�t like the mention of preference in a > criterion, and implies > >that it�s somehow necessarily imprecise. I don�t agree. Here > are a few > >approaches to the meaning of preference: > > I can't read Markus's mind, but I suspect that his objection is not so > much to the definition of "prefer" but rather to the fact > that it refers > to a state of mind of the voters separate from the *actual* > votes cast. > > I reply: > > That�s pretty much what Markus has said. But Markus must > distinguish between > the following things: > > 1. Something doen�t aesthetically appeal to Markus No. The only problem here is that when someone asks MIKE to clarify something he resorts to ad hominems instead of answering the question.
> 2. Markus dislilkes something non-traditional because Markus > is a loyal > follower of tradition. No. The Problem is that MIKE can't express himself unambiguously. > 3. A criterion is undefined, or is not well-defined. > > I repeat that if anyone believes that a criterion of mine > isn�t defined, or > isn�t well-defined, then he is invited to post to EM a situation > (configuration of candidates, voters, and > votrers�preferences), in which it > isn�t possible to definitely say whether a certain method > passes or doesn�t > pass that criterion. The EM list would prefer that you define your terms more precisely. If we can't figure out what you mean by a term because you use the language carelessly, it is NOT up to the reader to convince the writer that the writer's message wasn't conveyed clearly. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
