[EM] Complete voting

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd defined complete voting:

> >A voter votes completely if he doesn't leave unvoted a sincere preference
>that the balloting
> >system in use would have allowed him to vote in addition to the 
>preferences
>that he
> >actually did vote.

Craig L. said:

>And earlier he wrote:
>
> >Exactly the same situation with single-winner Cumulative.
> >Not voting a preference between Gore & Bush because you want to
> >vote only for Nader isn't insincere by my definition, because
> >voting Gore over Bush isn't allowed in addition to voting Nader
> >over Gore. The unvoted preferences can't be voted in addition to
> >the voted one, and so there's no insincerity in not voting the
> >unvoted one.
> >
> >One detail that should be specified for my definition is:
> >voting a preference for X over Y means voting X over Y, as I've
> >previously defined that.
>
>Okay, changing from 'sincerely' to 'completely' does not alter the fact 
>that
>this definition is not applicable to some voting methods, and as such is 
>not
>appropriate for a criteria that should be universally appliable.

You forgot to mention what method(s) my definition of complete
voting isn't applicable to.

>I'm not
>sure how this works in relation to your more complete definition of sincere
>voting

It doesn't work in relation to my definition of sincere voting.
It replaces sincere voting in my criteria.


>(you obviously need to have a definition of sincere
>preference for your complete thingy to work)

I suppose we could require a definition of every word that we
use, but I sometimes like to rely on the dictionary. If I tell
you that a sincere preference is a genuine preference, then you'll
ask me what "genuine" means. If I tell you that it's a preference
actually felt by the voter, then you'll ask me what "felt" and
"voter" mean. This is Craig Layton, rather than Craig Carey,
isn't it? No, don't ask me what "is" & "the" mean.

>, but it is at the very least
>still problematic in Cumulative.  I think you may have misunderstood >my
>point about Cumulative; an election where you have a preference A>B>C=D, 
>and
>four points (votes) to distribute.  Is giving A four points a complete 
>vote?

My definition is about voting a preference. I've defined voting
a preference for X over Y as voting X over Y. I've previously
defined voting X over Y. I'll repeat that definition if
necessary. My definition doesn't talk about how many points you
give candidates. It's about voting a preference for one candidate
over another by voting him over him.

Now, about your question: Yes, voting only for A is a complete
vote. You're declining to vote a preference for B over C & D,
but if you did so, you wouldn't be able to vote your preference
for A over B. So yes, voting only for A is a complete vote, by
my definition. There's no interpretation issue about it. The
definition is explicit.

My answer, then, is the same as it was before.

>You are able, under the voting system, to indicate further sincere
>preferences (by giving A 3 votes and B 1 vote).

The rules that I've seen for Cumulative say that your available
voting power is divided equally among those candidates whom you've
marked on your ballot. That's the method that I was referring to
when I said "single-winner Cumulative". But for the Cumulative that
you're talking about, by my definition, giving 4 points
to A isn't complete, because you could give A 3 points, and give
B 1 point, thereby voting your B>C & B>D preferences in addition
to your A>B preference. Your Cumulative isn't the same as the
one that I've heard the definition of, but my definition is applicable to 
it: Giving 4 points to A isn't a complete vote, as I define
complete voting. I repeat, then, that my definition of complete
voting is applicable to your single-winner Cumulative.

>Your definition gives
>"complete vote" very specific properties

That was certainly my intention.

>, some of which are certainly not
>relevant to the criteria.

Not every word definition is relevant to every criterion. If you're
saying  that complete voting isn't relevant to criteria that don't
refer to it, then I agree. If you're saying that complete voting
isn't relevant to the criteria that stipulate complete voting,
then you need to demonstrate that.


>It is not just about sincerity per se

It isn't about sincerity at all. I thought we agreed that
completeness isn't a requirement for sincerity.

>, the
>definition needs to make sense in relation to all systems

By "make sense in relation to..." do you mean "be applicable to..."?
If so, then you have yet to show me a method to which my
definition of complete voting isn't applicable.

>for the criteria
>to mean anything.

No, because some criteria don't mention complete voting. But
the ones that do stipulate complete voting do need complete voting
to have a definition that's applicable to all methods.

Maybe you were implying that my definition of complete voting isn't
applicable to the Cumulative that you defined, but, since my
definition answers your question about whether a vote is complete,
that means that it's applicable. Or do you have a different
voting example for which that definition of complete voting isn't
applicable?

Of course a point system can be similar to a pairwise-count
system, in the sense that it can allow you to vote all of your
sincere preferences, and so I don't know if some point systems can
meet CC by my definition. It's something to check, of course.
If they can, and you say that's a fault of my definition, then
I'd reply by asking if you prefer the usual CC definitions by
which all methods fail, or Plurality passes. Anyway, let's not
assume that passing CC means that a method is a good method. I've
long been saying that some CC complying methods are inadequate.
Pairwise-count methods.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com