Approval Voting fish (3)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

> >>A use of an undefined term, "maximum". It is a function of variables.
> >>This definition: "1/(number of [sub-votes] cast by that candidate)"; got
> >>  excluded. That would be an attempt to press down the "hump" and
> >>  create respectability.
> >
> >Sorry I didn't define "Maximum". It means "largest", or, in this
> >case, "largest permitted".
>
>A maximum is a function that eliminates variables. I don't see any
>  variables in what you wrote, around 'maximum'. "Permitted" would be a
>  Boolean function of some variables too. It is a constraint and the
>  variables it depends on are not at all stated. Both terms are very
>  undefined.

I have no idea what you're talking about. To maximize one's
utility expectation means to make one's utility expectation
as large as possible. I defined utility expectation yesterday.

>
> >
> >I don't know what you mean by "1/(number of votes cast by that
> >candidate)". If I excluded it it's because I never heard of it,
>
>   1/(number of sub-votes cast by that voter)
>
> >and don't know what it means. The candidates don't cast votes
> >in the election. Ok, you mean "voter" rather than "candidate",

>yes

> >and I suspect that you want to limit the voter to a maximum
> >total number of votes. That's the proposal that we don't know
>
>No, that is worded to show a consideration of internal variables.
>I would not want to define a rule that uses internal variables of
>  the Approval Voting method. So ideas like "points" and so on are
>  not due a consideration in any comparative consideration.

You can call it points or whatever else you want to. Your method
belongs to the class of methods often referred to as point systems,
because voters assign points to candidates. You can call them
votes.


>It is not clear what that "utility expectation" means. Real voters need

I've defined that term for you.



>  not wish to maximise that when allowed to have themeselves and the

Maybe they "need not" wish to, but they usually do wish to.

Voters want the best results they can get, and that's
why they vote in a way that tries to maximize utility expectation.



> >Utility doesn't mean power. It's a numerical measure of how good
> >it would be, for a certain voter, if a certain candidate won.
> >It could be defined as the merit of that candidate, as judged by
> >that voter.
>
>So it defined to be something that ignores voter's interests. Further
>  it achieves a disregard for their interests too. For example, it can

It isn't clear why you believe that the matter of how good an
outcome would be for a particular voter is something that
"ignores...[and]...disregards" that voter's interests.

It's as if you didn't even read the passage you were referring
to. That's what I mean when I say that you should take a better look at what 
we've said before you
"refute" it.

Mike Ossipoff

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com