Re. [EM] Sincere voting

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Joe W.,

to my opinion "sincerity" must include at least the following
five properties:

(1) The voting behaviour of a "sincere" voter must not change
when he gets additional information about the sincere opinions
or the voting behaviour of the other voters.

Example:

  Suppose that Approval Voting is used. Suppose that the
  sincere opinion of a given voter is A > B > C > D > E and
  that this voter decides to approve A, B, C and D.

  The day before election day, this voter hears that candidate
  E has no chances to win and that only candidate B and
  candidate C have realistic chances to win. Therefore, this
  given voter decides to approve only candidate A and
  candidate B.

  Due to Mike's definition of "sincerity," this given voter
  votes "sincerely." But (a) in so far as this voter changes his
  voting behaviour after he has got additional information
  about the voting behaviour of the other voters and (b) in so
  far as this given voter changes his voting behaviour because
  of strategical considerations, this voter votes "insincerely"
  due to my opinion.

(2) The voting behaviour of a "sincere" voter must not depend
on the used election method (as long as the compared methods
don't differ in the way in which the voters can cast their
opinions).

Example:

  Suppose that Borda is used. Suppose that the sincere
  opinion of a given voter is A > B > C > D. Suppose that
  this voter prefers candidate A very much to the other
  candidates and that his opinions about the other
  candidates don't differ significantly. Therefore this
  voter decides to vote A > B = C = D so that candidate A
  gets 3 points and the other candidates don't get any
  points.

  The day before election day, this voter re-reads the
  electoral law and observes that he has misunderstood this
  law and that if he had voted A > B = C = D then candidate A
  would have got 3 points and the other three candidates
  would have got 2 points each. Therefore this voter decides
  to vote A > B > C > D so that candidate A gets 3 points,
  candidate B gets 2 points, candidate C gets one point and
  candidate D gets no points.

  (a) In so far as this voter changes his voting behaviour
  after he has got additional information about the voting
  procedure and (b) in so far as this given voter changes his
  voting behaviour because of strategical considerations,
  this voter votes "insincerely" due to my opinion.

(3) For a voter with a given opinion there is a unique (but
not necessarily deterministic) way of voting "sincerely."

Example:

  When FPP is used then the unique way of voting sincerely is
  to make a cross-mark for that candidate who is the favorite
  candidate due to this voter's sincere opinion.

  Of course it is possible that a given voter has no unique
  favorite candidate. In this case he will randomly or
  arbitrarily decide which of his favorite candidates gets his
  cross-mark. But who gets his cross-mark must not change when
  this given voter gets additional information about the voting
  behaviour of the other voters.

(4) If a given voter strictly prefers candidate A to candidate
B due to his sincere opinion, then his casted opinion about
candidate A must not be strictly worse than his casted opinion
about candidate B.

(5) If the sincere opinion of a given voter about a given
candidate gets better then the casted opinion of this voter
about this candidate must not get worse.

Example:

  Suppose that Cumulative voting is used. Suppose that a
  given voter decides to give 4 points to candidate A.

  The day before election day, the sincere opinion of
  this voter about candidate A gets better while the
  sincere opinions of this voter about the other candidates
  don't change. Then this voter must still give at least 4
  points to candidate A.

******

It is clear that Mike Ossipoff will reject property 1-3.
He will claim that these properties were "dishonest,"
"sloppy," "shabby," "funky," "absurd," "faulty," "silly,"
"contradictory," "incoherent," "undefined" and "useless"
and that those who use these properties were "barking"
and "confused" "fruitcakes."

The reason why Mike Ossipoff defines "sincerity" the
way he defines it is: He wants to be able to claim that
it doesn't make any sense to vote "insincerely" under
Approval Voting. Therefore he defines "sincerity" in
such a way that even bullet voting is a "sincere"
voting behaviour under Approval Voting.

Therefore you should ask yourself: "Is bullet voting
a sincere voting behaviour?" And if your answer is "No!"
then you have to reject Mike's definition of "sincerity."

Markus Schulze