Markus said:
In my recent mails, I wrote that Mike Ossipoff's concept of "majority rejected" candidates cannot be used for other election methods than MinMax.
I reply:
But which of my criteria use the term "majority-rejected"?
As I said, my defintiion of defensive strategy uses the term "majority rule", and, as I said, I�ll post that definition after I get caught up with list e-mail.
Markus continues:
I also consider his concept of "offensive" and "defensive" strategies not promising.
I reply:
How�s that for a powerful argument :-)
By the way, Markus, I asked you if any one of a particular list of methods fails your "SFC version", and if any one of another particular list of methods passes your "SFC version". You haven�t answered that question. When you post a crirterion, one could expect you to be able to apply your criterion.
But let me make it simpler: If you aren�t ready to answer the question referred to in the previous paragraph, then, for now, answer this quesion:
Does BeatpathWinner meet your criterion that you posted as an alternative wording for SFC?
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
