Mike Ossipoff wrote: > > Hugh Tobin writes: [snip] > > > > Finally, let me suggest that making Steve's second example a litmus test > > (even with the reasonable exception), and implying that a "Condorcet" > > system would not elect A (despite his large plurality and the weak >[snip] > > results of B and C), would unnecessarily detract from the much more > > important Condorcet criterion and could put off those who otherwise > > That's a bizarre statement. How would that detract from the > Condorcet Criterion? The Condorcet Criterion, by itself, > isn't adequate. So if we add another criterion, you call > that detracting from the Condorcet Criterion? > > So no one can apply any other criterion, because that > would "detract from" the inadequate Condorcet Criterion? > > > might support some version of Condorcet against the raft of inferior > > alternatives. = > [snip] I thank Mike for his gentle correction of my inexact language. I should have said "distract attention" instead of "detract." By the way, in Mike's response my posting had a number of odd characters, perhaps because I composed it in Word, though the text was clean in my mailbox. If anyone else got a bad copy I apologize, and if anyone would like me to try to repost a cleaner one, please let me know. -- Hugh Tobin
