[EM] Falsifying rankings. Woodall's criteria. Your method.
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 20 00:11:01 PST 2004
[in regards to "completing truncated ballots]
"Should"? Why? Because Woodall says so?
Woodall, or anyone else, of course has the right to make whatever rules they
want for a method that they propose. But any claim that truncated rankings
should be "completed" needs justification. Just asserting a claim like that
"Symetric Completion" is the title of a criterion/standard that he has
worded more like a standard.
The "should" is a value that is epressed by the standard, not Woodall
What, so a method meets the "Symetric Completion Criterion" if it
symetrically completes truncated ballots?
But any twit can come up with all sorts of criteria, and it doesn't mean
anything unless it measures for a widely-accepted standard, or at least one
that the proponent can convince people of the importance of.
I hereby define the Random Modification Criterion. A method meets the Random
Modification Criterion if it randomly scrambles each ranking before it
(Woodall is not big on "justifying" standards/criteria
Now why doesn't that surprise me? :-)
, but rather in showing which combinations
are possible and which are not.)
Why should anyone care which unjustified criteria are mutually compatible or
Having said that, I like the criterion. Why should a truncated ballot be
treated differently from its
For the same reason why an aardvark should be treated differently from a
giraffe? Because they're not the same?
To claim that (if there are 3 candidates)that "1A truncate" isn't equivalent
"1A 2B 2C" is absurd.
I have never claimed that "1A truncate" isn't equivalent to "1A 2B 2C".
That's because I have no idea what "IA truncate" and "1A 2B 2C" are supposed
Absurd? Aren't we the assertive one. Why is it that the people who least
justify their statements are the ones who state them the most assertively?
What other reasonable interpretation is there? One voter likes filling in
more than the other.
Did you determine that by ESP? If a ranking doesn't give support to a
particular candidate, could it be that the voter didn't want to give support
to that candidate. Not just in wv, but in several new methods recently
proposed here, defensive truncation makes it impossible for a
majority-defeated candidate to win by offensive order-reversal.
"If truncated rankings were falsified in that way, changed into somethiing
that the voter didn't vote, many would rightly object that
ballot-modification isn't democratic."
"Falsified" is absurd.
Because you say so, right?
You modify a ranking so that it's different from what the person voted.
Everyone knows what it means when we speak of altering or falsifying a
document. Your "symetrical completion" adds candidates that the voter didn't
put there. That falsifies that ranking by the accepted meaning of the word.
"Ballot-modification" is not exactly the right phrase.
Is that what the ultimate arbiter of rightness says? You've added candidates
to the ranking that weren't there when the voter gave you the ballot, and
you say you haven't falsified or modified the ballot.
FPP (aka Plurality method)
and IRV both meet Symetric Completion.
I'll have to take your word for that, at least until you define the Symetric
A guess: Does a method meet that criterion iff it gives an unchanged result
after a truncated ballot is "symetrically completed"?
Is that one of those criteria that Woodall doesn't justify? :-)
"And, with the best methods, rankings falsified in that way would hamper
those methods' ability to deter offensive order-reversal by defensive
THIS is the statement that "needs justification".
Sorry, but I'm not going to justify it to you. It's common knowledge on this
list, and has been for years. I'd re-demonstrate it for you if your attitude
justified the time-requirement.
Condorcet completed by symetrically completed
reversed-rankings IRV Elimination, meets Symetric Completion while WV does
Is that the method that you proposed here a few days ago?
It meets Symetric Completion, does it? I must have missed it when you told
us why it's important to meet that criterion, and so would you repeat that?
Maybe the reason why it meets Symetric Completion is because it
"symetricallly completes" rankings
About that method that you named above, and defined a few days ago: You
define an elaborate method, show one or two examples, and either you expect
us to determine its properties for you,
or you seem to believe that showing one or two examples shows us how good
the method is. Or you just dump your elaborate method on us, saying "here it
is". Your example(s) say nothing about how badly your method can fail in
some different example. And no, don't ask me to show you a failure example.
It would be prohibitively time-consuming to find failure examples for every
elabortate method that could be defined. You, the proponent of it, are the
one to demonstrate its properties. And not with one or two examples, but by
demonstrating that it meets some desirable criterion. And unless that
criterion is a popular one like Condorcet's Criterion or the Majority
Favorite Criterion, you should say something about why it should matter to
us if a method meets that criterion.
A method meets a criterion if there's something good that it will always do,
or something undesirable that it will never do. Showing that, in one
example, your method does or doesn't do something is meaningless.
So how about a few
examples of WV doing a better job of "deterring offensive order-reversal"?
You see, this is what I was talking about: "A few examples" show nothing. WV
has been demonstrated to meet criteria that tell its strategy properties.
If you believe that your method is better than wv, or as good, then it's up
to you to demonstrate that your method meets some meaningful criterion that
wv doesn't meet. And if you can't show that your method meets the criteria
that wv meets, then your claim that your method is as good as, or better
than, wv requires that you show why the criteria that your method meets and
wv doesn't meet are more important than the criteria that wv meets and your
method doesn't meet.
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
More information about the Election-Methods