Dear Mike,
you wrote (18 Sep 2000):
> When I told you that the defensive strategy carry out your goal
> of protecting sincere voting, you said that they don't because
> they're ambiguous (Refer to the last sentence in question
> number 1, and to yesterday's message from me in which I
> answered your 2 questions). But in any case, if you don't
> like my criteria for protecting sincere voting, I have asked
> you what criteria _you_ like better for that purpose. You
> haven't answered that either.
Wrong. I have proposed beat-path GMC as an alternative to your
wordings of the lesser-of-two-evils criteria. Beat-path GMC
has the same purpose and it has the advantage that it is
defined on the actually casted votes.
Markus Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
