>There is no reason to feel accused. I only wanted you to remember
>that the question whether a given election method violates the
>Pareto criterion can be difficult. I could also mention Saumur's
>Smith//RandomCandidate.
Some of my prodedures would have ignored defeats in subcycles,
even if they're unanimous, so they were violating Pareto in
a particularly open way, and weren't examples of hidden
Pareto violation.
If some currently-considered proposals violate Pareto, or
might violate it, that would indeed make Pareto useful.
Mike Ossipoff
>
>Markus Schulze
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
