Mike O. has identified yet another instance of a problem which afflicts much EM terminology: a method being given a name which in no wise uniquely describes the method, i.e. serves in terms of literal meanings to differentiate it from other quite different methods.
For creating good workable names, we might do well to use Aristotle's basic two-part genus-species approach, in fact to use it twice. First, use a first part of the name to indicate how a voter may MARK the ballot, and use a second part of the name to indicate how the aggregate of ballots are to be SCORED or evaluated so as to derive the winner(s). Second, as needed, use 'genus' and 'species' terms within each of the parts. In terms of MARK and SCORE specifications, Condorcet methods are those wherein MARK calls for 'ranking' and SCORE includes the constraint: to take the Condorcet winner if one exists. I agree with what I take to be Josh's point: the present 'public' hardly cares about our terminology. But nonetheless we should care about keeping straight our own terms and (thereby) thoughts. This may help to abate confusion within a broader future public. Joe Weinstein Long Beach CA USA PS - AGAIN FOR MIKE. Again, Hotmail - rightly or wrongly - says your storage limit is exceeded so that I may not send a copy of this directly to you. - Joe _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
