[EM] Chris, criteria

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Chris--

You wrote:

I've cast "not vulnerable to Burying"  into a formal
criterion/property:

" Burial Resistance: If candidate x wins, and
afterwards some ballots that rank any y above x and
any z are changed so that z's ranking relative to x is
raised while keeping y ranked above both; then if
there is a new winner it cannot be y."

Unfortunately that is a very strong criterion, and the
only methods that I can think of that meet it are IRV
and FPP.

I reply:

FPP meets it because one can't write an example in which FPP fails it, 
because it only looks at examples with rankings.

But some would say that a criterion that is met by FPP and IRV aren't very 
demanding, even if those are the only methods that meet it.


"Weak Defection Resistance: If  winning candidate x is
the CW and the FPW, and xy are a solid coalition with
more than 2/3 of the votes; and afterwards  some
ballots that rank y above x and z are changed so that
z's ranking relative to x is raised while keeping y
ranked above both; then if there is a new winner it
cannot be y."


I comment:

FPP passes this one and the following one for the same reason.

"Weak Burial Resistance: If winning candidate x is the
CW and FPW while z is the CL and FPL , and afterwards
some ballots that rank any y above x and z are changed
so that z's ranking relative to x is raised while
keeping y ranked above them both; then if  there is a
new winner it cannot be y."

I comment:

Making successful offensive order-reversal strategy impossible is a 
difficult goal, because the method has no way of knowing which voted 
preferences are sincere and which aren't. Therefore, the only methods that 
can be inherently really invulnerable to offensive order-reversal are 
methods that don't look at and go by the pairwise defeats. CR, in all its 
versions, is such a method, and a good one.

Actually, I consider CR, in its versions other than Approval,  to be the 
best public proposal for a better voting system.

I personally prefer Approval to the otherl CR versions, but Approval is 
subject to misunderstanding due to its unfamiliarity, and often receives a 
not-valid criticism about "1-person-1-vote". The other CR versions are the 
best prospect for winnable, genuinely good, voting system reform.

But your criteria are about not letting offensive order-reversal succeed. 
But the problem caused by offensive order-reversal, when it causes a 
problem, is the defensive strategy dilemmas that it causes for other voters. 
So why not instead have criteria about defensive strategy need? For 
instance, CR, in all its versions, meets FBC and WDSC.

If most people on EM agree that we should publicly advocate a simple, 
winnable method that we all agree is a good method, then shouldn't we all be 
publicly advocating CR? What if we all started advocating CR publicly?

Mike Ossipoiff

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