[EM] Kevin & Lomax replies

[Michael Ossipoff]

Kevin says:

We could define Condorcet on sincere preferences also.

I reply:

We could and do. I define Condorcet’s Criterion based on preference. By 
“preference” I mean what you mean by “sincere preference”. It’s really the 
only CC definition that makes any sense.

Lomax says:

The > Condorcet Criterion has *nothing* to do with measuring SU. It's just > 
a guess at a beneficial method, an intuititively satisfying one that > turns 
out to miss something extremely important.

I reply:

The CW has everything to do with SU, because, when voting is spatial, based 
on distance in issue-space, the CW is the SU maximizer every time if that 
distance is measured as city-block distance (as I’ve argued that it should 
be). If the distance is measured by Pythagorean distance (also called 
Euclidean distance), then the CW is always the SU maximizer under such 
commonly-assumed conditions as multidimensional normally distributed voters, 
or uniformly distributed voters.

Intuitively satisfying? <smiley> The CW beats everyone, in terms of 
preference. Typically beats everyone by preference majorities. Such a winner 
is the most stable, because there can be no majority opposition after the 
election. The CW is the ultimate compromise, and compromise is very much 
part of single-winner voting.


Lomax continued:

…here is no real alternative to positing sincerity. *No* method can > 
guarantee good results if the voters don't disclose their opinions!

I reply:

Yes, and that’s why the defensive strategy criteria are essential. RV fails 
most of them. It fails SFC, GSFC, and SDSC, criteria that are met by SSD and 
BeatpathWinner.

I wasn ‘t going to comment on this discussion, having already had my say 
about it, but there were a few comments in its two most recent postings that 
I wanted to comment on.

By the way, my EM presidential poll includes Range Voting. I could have set 
the election up at a website that does automatic counting, but those 
websites don’t support RV, and a number of people here like RV. Besides, the 
automatic counting websites don’t prevent someone from voting 20 times. One 
Republican EM member could easily make McCain or Romney win. Though the 
result isn’t the important thing (Demonstrating the voting and counting of 
the methods is the important thing), it’s still better if the result isn’t 
distorted by cheat-voting. Hence the posted-ballot poll.

Mike Ossipoff