Markus--
Thank you--I'd only read their initial verbal definition of Regularity. I didn't know that they'd define it more thoroughly somewhere else. It would have been nice if they'd mentioned that, after the initial verbal definition. So yes, they do define Regularity more thoroughly than that verbal definition. I suggest that my Regularity criterion definition carries out P&P's intent better than their own Regularity criterion does, unless you believe that for some reason they intend that the criterion shouldn't be applied to methods whose balloting is cardinal. I'm not saying that their criterion, as defined by them, doesn't apply to CR. But it doesn't make sense in the way that it applies to CR. Additionally, my definition is much better expressed. For one thing, it's brief & self-contained, not relying on long definitions that limit the balloting type, and which must be found elsewhere. Regularity: Deleting a candidate from the election's ballots, and then recounting those ballots, should never decrease the win-probability of an undeleted candidate. [end of definition] Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
