[EM] CVD wants Alt.V to be fairer but it isn't: misleading website

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus wrote:

I don't believe that you don't consider independence from clones to be
important. Otherwise you would concentrate only on PC and you wouldn't
promote three methods in your http://electionmethods.org website.

I reply:

I told you that I don't consider ICC important, because it's too
unrealistic.

Markus continues:

PC is the best Condorcet method when one concentrates only on
strategical voting and ignores strategical nomination.

I reply:

You're mistaken. Tideman(wv) & SSD meet GSFC & SDSC, and PC fails
those 2 criteria (though it won't often fail SDSC). GSFC and SDSC,
like the other defensive strategy criteria, are about freedom for
need to vote insincerely, when and to what degree that freedom
can be guaranteed.

Markus continues:

PC meets
Saari's positive involvement criterion and Fishburn's no-show
criterion.

I reply:

Yes, PC does better by adverse results criteria than Smith-complying
methods do. But that certainly isn't as important as GSFC & SDSC,
and probably isn't as important as Smith and the criteria that go
with Smith.

Markus continues:

PC guarantees that a dichotomous voter cannot be
punished for showing up and voting sincerely.

I reply:

If you believed that voters preferences are dichotomous, then you'd
advocate only Approval. The fact that you don't means that you're
saying that preferences aren't dichotomous in general, and so
the guarantee that you mention above lacks meaning.


Markus continues:

PC isn't vulnerable to what Steve calls "indirect strategies."
That means: If PC is used then it isn't possible to change the
winner from candidate A to candidate B by ranking two different
candidates C and D insincerely to each other.

Does BeatpathWinner fail that one? Does Tideman(wv) pass it?

Anyway, you again seem overly concerned with trying to make sure that
strategy won't work. It makes more sense to instead try to make
strategy unnecessary, to make insincere voting unnecessary, whenever
and to whatever degree possible.

Markus continues:

Therefore when you don't consider independence from clones to
be important then why do you promote more methods than just PC?

I reply:

You know the answer to that: Because Tideman & SSD meet GSFC & SDSC.
Because Approval meets FBC, SARC, & Participation. (But Participation
is much less important than FBC or SARC or any of the defensive
strategy criteria, if we care about voters' concerns).

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.