[EM] Terminology and precision of definitions

[Paul Kislanko]

I'll try again to make the point that non-specialists need specialists to be
very precise in the use of language when talking about election methods. A
very good example is the phrase "sincere preferences." From reading posts on
this list I have come to the conclusion that the phrase has two different
meanings depending upon the context, but sometimes is used in one contxt
according to the definition in another, which muddles the discussion.

Since examples seem to be preferred over proofs, I offer this one.

In a selection between Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Popeye, and Bullwinkle, I
sincerely prefer Bullwinkle. 

If the method being used to count the votes doesn't allow me to vote for
Bullwinkle AND specify that if Bullwinkle doesn't win my predilections FOR
Donald and AGAINST Mickey and Popeye, can be taken into account, I wouldn't
be any less "sincere" if I voted for Donald.

So, my "Sincere" ranking is 
  Bullwinkle > Donald Duck >> { Mickey Mouse Popeye }

An ideal method (which has been proven to be impossible) would make the
distinction irrevelant. But the fact is my "sincere" preference is different
depending upon the method. I'm not less "sincere" when I apply a strategy to
elect Bullwinkle by ranking Popeye higher thhan fourth on a 4-place ranked
ballot if that results in my "sincere" preference winning.

Examples don't help for strategy discussions if folks don't make clear
whether "sincere preference" means "which alternative the voter prefers" and
"which alternative the voter wants to win the election". Ideally, those
would be the same, but since how the votes are counted necessarily affect
how the voter chooses a strategy, it gets very confusing if one uses the
term "sincere preferences" without making clear whether that refers to "in
general" or "with regard to this counting method".