Markus asked:
I would like to ask how you define "voting systems." I reply: It's reasonable to say that a voting system is a choice method that bases its choice on voting. But I also admit that Random Candidate could be called a degenerate voting system in which people can vote, but their votes are ignored. Rather like the 2000 Presidential election. Markus contined: By the way: In your 9 Jan 2002 mail, you asked me which "method" meets IIAC. You didn't ask me which "voting system" meets IIAC. I reply: Yes, and that's why I didn't say that you were wrong because RC isn't a voting system. I merely said that RC isn't a voting system. My implication was that, not being a voting system, RC is less important. Of course RC is commonly used as a tiebreaker, and is important in that regard. Of course it isn't a good choice for a tiebreaker in small committees or anywhere where there's a significant likelihood of a tie. In public elections it's quite harmless to use RC as the tiebreaker, since ties are vanishingly unlikely. Markus continued: So if e.g. a "voting method" implies the Pareto criterion due to your definition of "voting methods" I reply: Whoa, cowboy. Did I say that a voting system must meet the Pareto Criterion? If you define voting systems in that way, Sequential Pairwise wouldn't be a voting system. Not many would agree with your definition. Markus continued: , then you should have asked which method meets both Pareto and IIAC. Otherwise you must not be angry when the answer doesn't satisfies you. I reply: Excuse me, but did I say anything about Pareto? And I never said that I was dissatisfied with your answer that RC & RB meet your IIAC. What I said was that your answer is mistaken, because RB fails your IIAC. But I don't deny that RC meets your IIAC. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
