[EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

[Norman Petry]

Mike wrote:

>>Allright, you have a sincere set of preferences, and for every sincere set
>>of preferences and voting system, there is at least one sincere vote that
>>you can cast (unless you like all candidates the same).  I happen to think
>>that truncated votes count as sincere (for a number of reasons).
>
>And as I was saying before, there's a perfectly valid case for that
>position. We can say that it's sincere because you're not voting
>insincere preferences. Maybe with a little less justification, I
>can say that it's less than sincere because you're making it look as
>if you don't have a preference when you do. I say it my way because,
>as I said, it makes for briefer wording of SFC, GSFC, Condorcet, etc.
>
>So, for me, sincere means "sincere only, and nothing sincere avoidably
>left out". Of course that's the kind of sincerity asked for by the
>court oath that requires "...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
>but the truth". The whole truth of course means the whole truth known
>to that witness, just as I only forbid omitting preferences avoidably.

I agree with Craig.  Not expressing a preference, even if the voter has one,
is not insincere, and your reference to the court system shows why this is
so.

In most states (with the exception of Australia, and possibly a few others),
voting is not compulsory, unlike in courts of law, where testimony *is*
compulsory.  If the idea that voting is not compulsory is extended to
pairwise methods, it follows that voters should not be required to express
preferences between certain pairs of candidates.  Individual voters may
choose to abstain from participating in the group decision between certain
pairs of candidates for a variety of reasons, only some of which may be
insincere.  For example, a voter may feel that although they have a 'gut
feeling' that A is better than B, they believe that this opinion is not well
founded, and prefer to leave the choice to other voters who (they hope) may
be better informed.  I don't think this should be considered insincere.

It is no more insincere to say 'I refuse to express a preference between A
and B' than it is to say 'A is better than B' if the voter prefers A to B.

--
Norm Petry




decision in certain pairwise contests