[EM] A simple goodbye to Markus' objection.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

EM list--

Sorry it isn't possible to make a direct quote, but Markus
made 2 objections about WDSC (they apply to SDSC too). He
numbered them, and I'm going to engage in some order-reversal,
and reverse their order, while keeping the original numbering:

2. Markus said that WDSC's wording doesn't say whether or not it
   includes a condition about the voting of voters other than the
   majority in question that prefers A to B.

   Markus is quite right. The criterion doesn't say whether or
   not it has such a condition. It doesn't say "This criterion
   stipulates a condition regarding how the others vote.", or
   "This criterion does not stipulate a condition regarding how
   the others vote."

   But, Markus, though the criterion doesn't state whether or not
   it stipulates a condition, it nevertheless doesn't stipulate
   a condition about that. That should answer your question.
   Since no condition is stipulated, no mention of how others vote,
   that means that the criterion's requirement must be met no
   matter how the others vote.

   You said that I answered these questions before. Actually all
   I'm doing is pointing out to you that the criterion's wording
   itself answers your question. Not by stating that it does
   or doesn't stipulate a condition about other people's voting,
   but merely by not stipulating one.

1. You said that the criterion's wording doesn't say whether
   or not for a given example, every possible pair of candidates
   taken from among those in the example can simultaneously use
   their WDSC power.

   Again, you're quite right. A criterion doesn't say what's
   possible. It merely says what should or shouldn't be possible
   under specified conditions. I assume that's what you meant.

   When you referred to an example, you were talking about a
   configuration of candidates, voters, and voters' sincere
   preferences, like the configuration of Bruce's that you
   re-posted.

   So what you want the criterion's wording to tell is: Does the
   criterion require that every majority who prefers one candidate
   to another be able to simultaneously use its WDSC power, with
   a given configuration of candidates, voters & voters' sincere
   preferences.

   Right again. The criterion doesn't say whether it requires that.
   In fact, in general, criteria don't include a list of all the
   requirements that they don't make. So, then, how do you know
   what they require and don't require if they don't tell you
   everything that they don't require? The secret: If the criterion
   states a requirement, then that's something that it requires.
   If there's a requirement that the criterion does not state, then
   that's something the criterion does not require. Ok?

   So ask the criterion. What requirement does it state? Let me
   quote:

   "If a majority of all the voters prefer A to B, then they
    should have a way of ensuring that B won't win, without any
    member of that majority voting a less-liked candidate over a
    more liked one."

    It's really right there, isn't it?

    Now, with a given configuration of candidates, voters, &
    voters' preferences, does that wording say that there's just one
    pair of candidates for whom that's true? With all criteria,
    it's understood that, for some particular election, some
    configuration like Bruce's, it isn't saying that it only
    applies to 2 candidates in that election whose names literally
    are "A" & "B". For all criteria that use letter names, it's
    understood that, when we're considering a particular
    configuration of candidates, voters, & voters' sincere
    preferences, what the wording means is that the requirement
    must be met no matter which of those candidates is A and
    no matter which is B.

   And, yes, it's also true that, given such a configuration,
   every majority who prefers some candidate to some other
   candidate must WDSC power.

   But, you know, that's not at all the same as saying that they
   all must be able to simultaneously _use_ that power.

   Say that 3 political party leaders are sitting at a round table,
   for the purpose of negotiating which 2 parties will form a
   coalition that will freeze-out the other party. Obviously only
   one such coalition is possible.

   With 3 party leaders at the table, there are 3 combinations
   of 2 candidates. You'll surely agree that, each one of those
   pairs of party leaders has the power to form that coalition if
   they choose to. And yet you'll also agree that it is not
   possible for all 3 pairs of party leaders to simultaneously
   form that coalition by which 2 parties freeze-out the 3rd one.

   So when WDSC requires that every majority who prefers one
   candidate to some other one must have the power to use WDSC
   power, that is _not_ saying that all such majorities must
   simultaneously be able to use that power.

   Again, it isn't that I answered the question. I merely pointed
   out to you that WDSC's wording answers the question.

What follows isn't necessary, in regards to the above answers to
Bruce's & Markus's objections. It's just something that I consider
a neater way of dealing with criteria compliances & examples.

By the way, the reason why I didn't want to call Bruce's
configuration an example is because an example has to specify
everything that must be specified due to the criterion's wording.

In my wording of what it means to meet a criterion that refers to
candidates by letter designations, I said that:

For any example that has _specific_ candidates A,B,C..., corresponding to 
each of
the letter designations by which the criterion refers to candidates,
, the criterion's
requirement must be met.

The example must specify everything that
must be specified due to the criterion's wording. Of course that
includes voters, candidates, preferences, or votes,
that the criterion doesn't mention in its premise, because if the criterion 
doesn't
mention a condition about one or more of those things, then that
thing could be any way at all; of course it has to be some way,
and therefore must be specified in the example. The person writing
the example & trying to find a failure can of course configure
those unspecified things any way he wants to.

[end of claim about what it means to meet a criterion that names
candidates by letters]

In the above wording of what it means to meet a criterion,
A, B, & C are spoken of as particular candidates in the example.

In Bruce's configuration of candidates, voters, & voters'
sincere preferences, every 2 candidates can be considered A & B.
That feels a little on the loose side, and so, with an example
I prefer to say that the example has a specific A, B, C...
An example for Bruce's configuration would be his configuration
with a certain 2 candidates being A & B. The different ways of
taking A & B from Bruce's candidates would give us different
examples.

WDSC doesn't say anything about the votes of people other than
the members of that referred-to majority preferring A to B.
Since it doesn't mention them, it doesn't have a condition about
them, as I said in answer to your objection. That means that they
can be anything, and must be specified in the example, based on
what I said above in my claim about what it means to meet a
criterion. The person trying to write a failure example can
configure them any way he wants to. Likewise the number of
candidates, the number of voters, etc.


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.