[EM] One more comment on Kevin's example

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Kevin--
> 
> You suggested that there could be a method in which a majority, who have 
> transitive strict preferences among all the candidates, could ensure that 
> some Y won't win, by alternately voting ">" and "=" in their rankings. You 
> said that's a silly way of voting, and that, because a silly way of voting 
> could make Y lose, thereby compllying with WDSC's requirement, that meant, 
> you said, that WDSC's requirement must not be reasonable.

No, I think it's a silly way to *have* to vote. And if WDSC passes a method
that requires a voter to vote in a silly way, then maybe WDSC could be made
more strict.

> Now, maybe you'd like to hypothesize a method with which, under certain 
> conditions, the _only_ way that that majority can keep some Y from winning 
> would be for them to alternately vote "=" and ">", or to use ">" and "=" to 
> spell out "WDSC" in Morse code. Silly? Sure. Would that be a silly method? 
> Of course. Would that mean that the guarantee that those voters don't have 
> to reverse a preference in order to make someone lose is not a meaningful or 
> reasonable guarantee. No.

I don't agree with you.

> By the way, aside from all that, it isn't quite clear why you think it's 
> silly to equal-rank.

I don't think that.

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
Découvrez nos promotions exclusives "destination de la Tunisie, du Maroc, des Baléares et la Rép. Dominicaine sur Yahoo! Voyages :
http://fr.travel.yahoo.com/promotions/mar14.html