[EM] Markus, 2 March, ´05, 1317 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You said:

I wrote (27 Feb 2005):
>So you say that it is impossible to define WDSC, SDSC,
>and FBC in terms of cast preferences?

You wrote (27 Feb 2005):

>Either it's impossible, or else no one has yet succeeded.
>Does it matter which it is?

Yes, it does matter. Election methods are defined on
_cast_ preferences and not on _sincere_ preferences.

I reply:

Wrong. Now some are defined on preferences, as opposed to only votes.

Of course you can define anything any way that you want to. So you can 
define a criterion as a voting system Yes/No test that is doesn´t mention 
preference. But that would be an unnecessarily narrow definition of a 
criterion. A voting system criterion is a Yes/No test for evaluating voting 
systems. The ones that you like don´t mention preference. But, contrary to 
your claim, quoted above, those ones that you don´t like, which mention 
preference, are criteria, by any reasonable definition of that term.

You continued:

Therefore, whether a given election method passes a
given criterion must depend only on how this method
handles _cast_ preferences.

I reply:

...if it´s one of the criteria that you like.

I´m not asking you to like my criteria. But you need to understand that "the 
criteria that Markus likes" doesn´t mean "the set of all criteria".

You continue:

Therefore, a criterion
can be well defined only when it can be defined
without mentioning _sincere_ preferences.

I reply:

Certainly, if we accept your definition of a criterion, which says that not 
mentioning preference is a requiremen for criteria. But your definition is 
arbitrary and unjustifiable.

So  that´s what it comes down to: You try to jusify your claim that my 
criteria are undefined because, by your definition, criteria are defined 
only if they don´t mention preference. I suppose one can justify any 
statement, by one´s chosen definitions.

Ok, now you´ve answered my question. You´ve told me why you think that my 
criteria are undefined. Now this discussion has concluded, because you´ve 
answered my question.

There´s no need for more discussion about why you believe that my criteria 
are undefined, unless you have another reason for believing that, or unless 
you can post an example of a situation (configuration of candidates, voters, 
and voters´preferences) with which it isn´t possible to say definitely that 
a some particular method passes the criterion or fails it.


You wrote (27 Feb 2005):
>In a sense a method that gives the same result is the
>same method, but in another sense it can be said to
>not be the same method, if it's a completely different
>implementation. In any case, however, when I said that
>SSD is equivalent to Schulze's method, that statement
>wasn't entirely correct.

Nope. It is not a "completely different implementation".

I reply:

Yep. BeatpathWinner and CSSD are completely different implementations. But 
of course there´s also a sense in which they´re one method, which is why I 
often say BeatpathWinner/CSSD.

But I don´t want to debate that issue.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/