>As a first
>guess, I suggest: "If a majority of all the voters vote A in first or equal
>first, and B in last or equal last, then B mustn't win." If that doesn't
>resemble Mike's intention
>
>I reply:
>
>...and it doesn�t resemble WDSC.
The [...] that you left out was probably the part where I mentionied that Plurality passes your proposed WDSC substitute.
I asked you then, and I ask you again: What method fails your criterion?
But it implies WDSC, is easier to check, and doesn't allow silly methods of compliance.
I reply:
When you say that your criterion implies WDSC, you mean that compliance with it implies compliance witih WDSC. That doesn't mean that your criterion is valuable, or should be considsered as a substitute for WDSC.
Above you call WDSC a "minimum requirement for a barely adequate method." So why would you doubt that my *stricter* version of WDSC is valuable or useful?
I reply:
It isn't clear why you think that your criterion is "stricter" than WDSC, since your criterion is met by Plurality, and pretty much any method. What method doesn't meet your "stricter" criterion?
I agree:
Actually, I don't believe WDSC or my stricter version are very useful.
You're certainly partly right: Your "stricter version" isn't useful, certainly not useful for distinguishing between the merit of different methods, unless you can find a method that fails it.
It isn't entirely clear in what sense you think that your criterion is a version of WDSC.
As for the usefulness of WDSC: What's useful to you depends on what you want to use things for.
WDSC is one of a set of criteria that are about the need for a majority to use strategy in order to protect majority rule or the win of a CW. WDSC, in particular, is about circumstances in which it can be guaranteed that a majority won't need to reverse a preference.
It's perefectly possible that you don't understand why it could be useful or desirable to guarantee that people won't need to reverse a preference. In that case, we have nothing to discuss, and, as you said, my criteria aren't useful to you.
I suggest that that concludes this discussion.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee� Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
