Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

[LAYTON Craig]

Demorep wrote:
>26 ABC
>25 BAC
>49 C
>
>Do some of the minority C voters may an *insincere* second choice ???

No, they don't.  Previous messages started give my definition of sincerity.
Truncated ballots do not count as insincere unless the unvoted choices are
liked more than the voted choices (or liked the same as the voted choices in
a system where you can express tied preferences).

Bart Inles wrote:
>LAYTON Craig wrote:
>> A sincere vote in a plurality count method is one in which you put
>> your first preference first.
>
>Yeah, but who would assume sincere votes in a plurality system?

You don't assume sincere votes, but Martin was saying that a misleading
instruction changes what a sincere vote is.  I disagreed.

Bart Ingles wrote:
>Anything can be defined as anything, but defining Plurality on
>preferential ballots doesn't make it the same Plurality as is used in
>the U.S. and U.K.  To use two different meanings of the same term
>interchangeably is a logical fallacy (equivocation).

I know I'm not saying the same thing as Markus, in that I'm not defining
Plurality in terms of full rankings, but I don't see the problem in defining
it preferentially.  I think that the best way to standardise the voting
systems is to define them all preferentially, and then define sincerity in a
common manner, taking into account the limitations of various systems in
expressing one's preferences.

A vote in plurality, where the voter votes '1' or where the voter votes with
a cross, is logically identical.  There is a preferential equivalent for any
non-preferential system, where the voters could just as easily (well,
perhaps not as easy for the voters) vote with the preferences allowed by the
system.  It doesn't make sense to define systems with reference to
themselves, which is what Mike is attempting to do, because this makes it
impossible for any meaningful kind of comparison between systems.