thanks Abd. The google cached article is not the most recent version which e.g included an additional section and considerbly larger bibliography, unfortunately. Also, Opabinia Regalis intiialy gave a 1-line deletion request for my article and gave no reasons whatever, however, after I later enquired how the heck I was supposd to respond to such a complaint with no specifics, he/she gave the list of reasons you so admire.
The list of 4 reasons were: > * The idea of a "wrong" winner of an election implies that one > or more "right" winners exist, which is inherently biased. The idea > that the "right" winner is defined as the one that "most of the > populace would have preferred" is also biased, because some voting > systems are explicitly designed to use other factors than plain majorities. > * The text is biased. Wrong-way elections are "pathologies" and > "alter history, presumably usually for the worse"? > * The examples are poor. Other than the Gore-Bush election, > which is adequately covered elsewhere, the only example is that of > Allende. The article even admits that the sole source cited in this > example uses its references inappropriately. > * The mathematical properties of voting systems are already > covered in the articles > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system>Voting system and > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_different_voting_systems_under_similar_circumstances the replies to these are 1. nonsense 2. pathologies is a standard word 3. actualy there were over 20 examples, not just these 2, and I did not "admit" this, I "pointed it out to correct Saari's error" 4. those other articles did not give any list of historical examples, my article did. it went downhill from there. wds ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
