Perfect Method Criteria

[Mike Ossipoff]

I just want to say that, at least as it seems to me now, both
Steve's LOE-3 and Rob's Axiom #4 are ways to correctly state what
a perfect method would have to do, as regards the goal of getting
rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem.

But criteria are a tricky topic, and though LO2E-1 & LO2E-2,
& GMC have been discussed enough that I can now say that
I'm sure of what I say about them, I shouldn't claim that
what I say about new criteria is reliable. 

So they test whether a method is perfect in that regard. Of course
none of the methods proposed in this list could pass either of
those 2 perfect method criteria.

As I've said though, some refinements, in the form of 
anti-order-reversal options, which I've hinted at on this
list, without stating a definite definition--some such refinements
may well be able to make Condorcet's method near-perfect enough
so that we could say that it virtually meets those 2 perfect
method criteria. But I can't say that for sure, and I haven't
even completely defined those refinements. I believe that's the
next place to look, if anyone wants to find still better
1-balloting sw methods. Others are welcome to pursue the
project of clearly defining a refinement of that kind, one
which virutally meets those 2 perfect method criteria.

A statement of what we want, in the way of method improvement,
in the form of briefly stated criteria, is of course the first
step toward _finding_ that improved method. And it seems to
me that LOE-3 & Axiom #4 state what we ideally want when it
comes to lesser-of-2-evils.

***

I have no objection to saying "LOE" intead of "LO2E". If there's
opinion that "LOE" will be better understood or accepted by people,
and no opinion to the contrary, then I'll go along with that notation.

***

Mike

 

--