[EM] (II) Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing

[David Catchpole]

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Craig Carey wrote:

> >The addition (removal) of a candidate does not, for any other candidate, 
> >increase (decrease) the probability of that other candidate winning.
> >
> 
> That is clear enough. It is not something people will agree is desirable
>  since it does not match what happens in elections. In reality with
>  actual preferential voting where preferences lists are not full, and
>  people don't mind to what happens to all the candidates for which no
>  preference was expressed. They are only interested in the candidates that
>  they vote for.

That's just plain nihilism. Our consideration is how voters would express
preference (and yeah, you're going to try to weedle out of an argument by
stating that you still don't understand what this might mean) amongst
candidates _were they to run_.(more further down)

> Perhaps election methods could allow them to cast votes having a power of
>  10 votes, and allow them to cast upto 10 positive votes or upto 10 papers
>  with negative votes to help some candidates lose.

...don't follow...(more further down)

> Where A wins is the same as in FPTP (say) (otherwise the method makes
>  outcomes for a candidate to be affected by subsequent preferences.
>  It can be asserted that the method must be not worse than STV).

...don't follow...(more further down)

> This was written (repeated) [might have seen this rule before]:
> 
> Rejected 'Metameucil' or 'Regularity'(?) rule:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The addition (removal) of a candidate does not, for any other candidate, 
> >increase (decrease) the probability of that other candidate winning.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Probability probably means a blurring or fuzzifying of the B-C boundary.

No, here we're talking about non-deterministic voting systems where some
form of "lottery" is involved. For instance, an example of a
"non-deterministic," "probabilistic" or "stochastic" single-winner 
election system is one where the probability of a candidate being the
winner is equivalent to the ratio of first preferences
(StrinePolitikSprechen) for that candidate. This has been dubbed "random
dictatorship" because one way of considering it is as the random drawing
of a ballot paper and the election of that ballot's first preference. This
is _the_ primary example of a regular probabilistic election system.