Markus--
You said:
You are the only one who defines criteria in terms of sincere preferences and not in terms of cast preferences.
I reply:
That probably isn�t strictly true. Some academic authors have defined the CW as the candidate who�s win every pairwise comparison if we used rank balloting and everyone voted their actual preferences...and then defined the Condorcet Criterion by saying that the CW should always win. At least it seems to me that I�ve run across that. No, I couldn�t say where, or who said it. But it isn�t important. Maybe it�s true that no one else has ever defined a voting system criterion that mentions preferences.
Of course that particular Condorcet Criterion version described in the previous paragraph is unmeetable, but that�s beside the point.
But yes, for the most part, I�m the only one who defines criteria that mention preference. However, I�m not the only one who uses such criteria. Sometimes the preference version of the Mutual Majority Criterion is used by others. They use it because they don�t want the problems that go with the votes-only versions.
You continued:
Why should anybody define criteria in terms of sincere preferences only because you do that?
I reply:
How should I know why you should define criteria in terms of sincere preference only because I do that?
If _you_ feel that you should, then that�s good enough. You don�t have to ask me for a reason.
I�ve often repeated that I encourage you to define criteria however you want to.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
