Donald D wrote: -snip- >A candidate is no longer a contender when he becomes last in the >vote tally -snip- Here's where IRO's fallacy--and Don's circular reasoning--come into play. By what (non-hippo, non-IRO) logic is any candidate last in the tally when there are more than two candidates remaining? Why not define "last in the tally" as having the worst Condorcet score instead of fewest first choices? Or, why not fewest first plus second choices? Etc. Don has stated a rule, a definition of which candidate is last, but he still hasn't explained why anyone ought to prefer that definition over alternatives. Until then, it's reasonable to assume he's using what he calls hippo logic. (This is an allegation I've made before which he hasn't denied.) ---Steve (Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED])
