Marcus,
You wrote (8 Jan 2009):
Statement #1: Criterion X does not imply criterion Y.
Statement #2: Criterion X and criterion Y are incompatible.
Statement #1 does not imply statement #2. But in your
29 Dec 2008 mail, you mistakenly assume that statement #1
implies statement #2.
No I didn't.
Dear Chris Benham,
you are the only one who uses the fact, that criterion X
doesn't imply criterion Y, as an argument against
criterion X. That's the same as rejecting monotonicity
for not implying independence of clones.
Your argumentation is not complicated.
It is simply false.
Markus Schulze
Marcus,
You wrote (29 Dec,2008):
You wrote: All three candidates have a majority beatpath
to each other, so GMC says that any of them are allowed to
win. No! Beatpath GMC doesn't say that any of them are
allowed to win; beatpath GMC only doesn't exclude any of
them from winning.
I can't see
Dear Chris Benham,
you wrote (29 Dec 2008):
I think that compliance with GMC is a mistaken standard
in the sense that the best methods should fail it.
The GMC concept is spectacularly vulnerable to Mono-add-Plump!
[Situation #1]
25: AB
26: BC
23: CA
04: C
78 ballots (majority
