part 2, monotonicity flaw

[Mike Ositoff]

n> 
> 
> Of course, these methods give up other things.  Like, for example,
> the idea that if a candidate is the first choice of a majority,
> it will be guaranteed to win, without any massive strategic voting 
> effort being necessary. 

With FPP, IRO, or Margins, a candidate with a 1st choice majority
can lose due to strategy problems, when his voters mistakenly
believe that that is one of the times when they need to protect
a needed lesser-of-2-evils.

> 
> >one tolerates that fault, because of VA's big strategic advantages.
> >But what's the reward for tolerating it with Margins or IRO? :-)
> >
> I don't, of course, believe that VA has any strategic advantages
> over Margins.  We've discussed that at length.  And I don't think

May the jury make the best decision based on the arguments.

> much is required to outweigh the Adverse Result Criterion, as
> I only think it is useful for its rhetorical power.

I agree that Adverse Result, Consistency, & Heritage, &
even Monotonicity aren't as important as strategy criteria.
But they're all desirable bonuses that you get when you
choose Approval for strategy criterion reasons (weak 1st Choice
Criterion).

Mike


> 
> ---
> 
> Blake
> 
> 
> 
> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
> 
>