Dear Craig L., you wrote (13 Dec 2000): > It doesn't make sense to define systems with reference > to themselves, which is what Mike is attempting to do, > because this makes it impossible for any meaningful kind > of comparison between systems. I absolutely agree with you. Markus Schulze
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. LAYTON Craig
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. David Catchpole
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Bart Ingles
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Markus Schulze
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Bart Ingles
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Markus Schulze
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. LAYTON Craig
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Martin Harper
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Martin Harper
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. Blake Cretney
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. LAYTON Craig
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. LAYTON Craig
- Re: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
- RE: [EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality. MIKE OSSIPOFF
