Recall that Markus said: > there is a paper by Woodall in which he demonstrates that > no preferential single-winner election method can meet the > following four properties simultaneously [Douglas R. Woodall, > "An impossibility theorem for electoral systems," Discrete > Mathematics, vol. 66, p. 209-211, 1987]: On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Craig Carey wrote: > > > At 22:41 04.11.00 -0800 Saturday, Blake Cretney wrote: > > I just don't > > see > >remarks like > > > > > Property 3 ought be rejected too since it wrong for all > > > elections > > > with 0 winners. > > > >as being worthy of comment. > > If you want to constrain the number of elements in a set then you > have to do it explicitly. Do you try to suggest by the actual words > that you used, that whatever you feel or believe is inherent and > factual in any formula you see?. Markus said that Woodall's paper was for "single-winner" elections. Single winner elections have exactly one winner. > Obviously criticising me as being closed minded is another area that > needs a skilled hand or it will fail. Blake wrote "your statement > suggests to me is that you have no interest in our arguments." Blake > didn't make an argument, did you Blake. I certainly try to avoid personal criticisms. Notice that I did not use the phrase "close-minded". I simply quoted something you had said about open-mindedness, and stated that it summed up your opinion on the subject. Although I made no attempt to restate the usual arguments in favour of Condorcet, I did suggest where you might find them. > If you will not then I will write to the list owner and > inform that human that I am not gaining your compliance. Dear Human List Owner, Writing-unit, designation Blake Cretney, does not comply. He must be assimilated. Resitance is Futile, Craig Carey --- Blake Cretney
