Approval Voting & FBC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>The last sentence in the following ("Perhaps ... with you.").
>  Please give an example if you have one, e.g. using one of the
>  methods STV or IFPP or FPTP or SNTV.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>At 12:23 05.03.00 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> >
>...
> >>FBC is contrived valueless overly weak rule.
> >
> >Because Borda & the Alternative Vote don't meet it?
> >It's hardly a "weak" criterion, since there's only one method
> >that can meet it. Perhaps to you it's ok if voters have a strategic
> >need to vote a lower choice over their favorite, but few would
> >agree with you.

Ok, you want examples of how the Altenative Vote & FPTP
create a strategic incentive to vote a less-liked candidate
over your favorite.

Alternative Vote:

Sincere rankings:

40: ABC
25: B
35: CBA

***

If everyone votes sincerely, A wins even though a majority prefer
B to A. To prevent that, the C voters must vote B in 1st place,
over their favorite.

***

FPTP:

Same example, same sincere preferences. Again, the C voters
can defeat A only by insincerely voting for B instead of for
their favorite, C. This kind of voting is quite common in the
U.S. It would happen if we used the Alternative Vote too.
I'd better clarify again that the Alternative Vote is being
pushed in the U.S. by its promoters under the name "Instant Runoff"
or IRV.

>At 12:23 05.03.00 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>...
> >> >> >> >Favorite-Betrayal Criterion (FBC):
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >By voting a less-liked candidate over his favorite, a voter
> >> >> >> > should never gain an outcome that he likes better than any
> >> >> >> > outcome that he could get without voting a less-liked
> >> >> >> > candidate over his favorite.
> >> >>...
> >>:> >The words "over his favorite" doesn't mean that the Approval
> >>:> > sub-votes
> >
> >The words "over his favorite" say nothing about Approval sub-votes,
> >what ever they might be.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Can you write the idea "over" in a mathematical form?. Despite the
>  use of words, I can't understand the definition of FBC (because of
>  lots of problems with the wording: "over" [undefined, a  preference
>  nearer the 1st?], less-liked candidate [refers to a preference
>  list?], likes better [no voter is around to comment so a preference
>  list (perhaps) describes 'likes'], any [can mean either all, or
>  some], favorite [must be a 1st preference or else described in
>  attached notes or etc.]).

I've already defined what it means to vote one candidate over
another, but I'll repeat it again:

You can vote X over Y by voting for X but not for Y. In nonranked
methods that's the only way to do it. With a ranked method,
"voting for X but not for Y" means including X in your ranking,
but not including Y. Also, with ranked methods you can vote
X over Y when including both in your ranking, by giving X a higher
rank position than you give to Y.

>
>If "over" means insert in the preference list before (i.e. nearer the
>  1st  preference), then is "better" (which is undefined) based on
"Better" isn't undefined. It's in any dictionary of English.
I don't intend to define for you every English word that I use.

the
>  preference list before or after the "voting" ? (i.e. the inserting of
>  the preference, if any. If a text on any attached statement writen by
>  the voter is followed, then it will 'before inserting' [or "over"-ing]).

I have no idea what all that is supposed to mean. If you don't
know what it means to like one candidate better than another,
then I can't help you.

>
>FBC doesn't seem to be one of the greater rules (as defined).
>I note it contains an idea of "favourite"?, e.g. A in (AB+) [which
>  can be sometimes altered into (A+)]. If FBC can't detect a difference

I have no idea what you mean by A+ & AB+.

>  between the  1st and 2nd preferences, and swapping is allowed, then
>  possibly (A+), with the favourite being A, would be liked ("likes
>  better") just as much as (AB+).

>
>I assume Mr Ossipoff wishes to end writing. The discussion must be
>  about done.

Yes. Partly because I have no idea how to answer statements like
your statement quoted above. We've both said what we have to say
on the subject. I might still selectively answer a few parts of
your letters, if you say something that has a definite meaning,
and which is a reasonable-sounding objection that someone else
might make.  I'll be more likely to if they aren't 26 kilobytes.
If you have a serious objection or claim that you'd like answered,
please post it concisely and clearly in a short posting. I have
nothing against long letters. I often send them, and often like
to get them. But I just mean that I can't wade through 26 kB of
I-don't-know-what in order to fish out a few reasonable statements
with definite meaning.

Mike Ossipoff

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