[EM] Comments on a bizarre request.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

EM list--

I'd like to comment again on some things that Markus said:

>It seems to me that you believe that criteria that are defined on
>the actual casted ballots and not on the sincere opinions of the voters 
>don't say anything about the need for insincere voting.

Well, I must admit that it isn't quite obvious how a criterion
that doesn't mention sincere preferences (and therefore can't talk
about sincere & insincere voting) could say anything about the need
for insincere voting.

Maybe he means that if we wrote an equivalent criterion, that
doesn't mention sincere preferences, compliance with that criterion
would imply compliance with my criterion that mentions sincere
preferences. (Let's say that 2 criteria are equivalent of they're
met by the same methods and failed by the same methods).

But in no way could that other criterion be said to say anything about
the need for insincere voting.

Markus seems to be saying that if I want criteria about avoiding need
for insincere voting, then he wants me to write them without any
mention of sincere preferences, sincere voting, or insincere voting :-)

Markus, the only thing that you've succeeded in proving is that you're
driven by some desperate need to try one silly & nonvalid objection
after another. I have to say that it was true when I said that if
that's the best you can do then you're only wasting our time.

By the way, Markus claimed to show that it's always possible to write
an equivalent criterion that doesn't mention sincere preferences.
Well do you have a way of stating Beatpath GMC in a way that
applies to all methods without arbitrary failure-fiat for some methods,
and which makes no mention of sincere preferences?

Anyway, even if it's possible to write such equivalent
no-sincere-preference criteria, Markus hasn't shown that it's feasible
& practical, much less that it's necessary or desirable or even useful.

For instance, for FBC, one could say "The voting system must be
Approval". That would satisfy Markus's request for an equivalent
no-sincere-preferences requirement, but it couldn't be said to be useful.
People would tell me that I can't argue for Approval by giving them
a criterion that says that the method must be Approval. FBC is worded
to say something that's desirable. I want to say that no one should
ever have incentive to dump their favorite, and Markus wants me to
somehow word that without any mention of sincere preferences (including
favorite). Excuse me, but that request is asinine.

If Markus wants equivalent no-sincere-preferences criteria for
the defensive strategy criteria, then let him write them. After he does,
then we can judge their usefulness.

Mike Ossipoff














_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.