[EM] Kevin, 19 March, '05, 0330 GMT

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

 --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit : 
> What you need, then, is something quite different from WDSC. You need to 
> define the No Silliness Criterion. Go for it. In the meantime, though, I'll 
> settle for methods that don't require those voters to reverse a preference.

I don't need to define a criterion to explain why I don't like another
criterion.

> If I could make a suggestion for your No Sillliness Criterion, you might 
> consider SDSC. It requires that that majority additionally not need to vote 
> equal two candidates that they don't prefer equally. As I define "vote 
> equally", it applies only to candidates whom that voter votes over someone.

I'm surprised you don't know that I like SDSC. Only I use Steve Eppley's
votes-only wording under the name "Minimal Defense" since he has offered
such a wording.

Why do I want a votes-only wording of this? Because it's very easy to use.
Votes-only Minimal Defense says certain candidates can't win given some
situation. I can program this into a computer. But I can't easily program a
computer to search for how a majority "needs to vote."

> I'd said:
> 
> >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.
> 
> You say:
> 
> I don't agree with you.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Ok, then you must be  saying that guaranteeing that those voters won't need 
> to reverse a preference isn't a meaningful or reasonable guarantee.

"The majority might need to vote in morse code" is not a very meaningful
guarantee.

> But you have a right to want more, and to write a criterion that requires 
> more, and to tell us which methods meet it and which don't. Or would you 
> rather just complain because I haven't written your criterion that you want?

I was just commenting. Please don't feel that I'm urging you to do anything.

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