[EM] Blake--Your 2 examples. IRV yes, Tideman no.

[Blake Cretney]

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:35:38 PDT
From: Blake Cretney <bcretney at postmark.net>
To: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Blake--Your 2 examples. IRV yes, Tideman no.
Reply-To: bcretney at postmark.net
X-Mailer: Spruce 0.6.2 for X11 w/smtpio 0.7.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, "MIKE OSSIPOFF" wrote: 
> Blake--
> 
> Your IRV example is a UUCC badexample for IRV, since if one
> person changes his vote so as to no longer vote Bc over B,
> someone whom he likes less than Bc wins as a result, where
> Bc previously won, and where everyone likes B better than Bc.
> 
> But your example for Condorcet, Tideman(m), & Schulze isn't
> an example of those methods failing UUCC, because it took 35
> voters reversing their Bc>B vote in order to give the election
> to someone whom they like less than Bc. It has to happen if
> _one_ voter reverses his Bc>B vote.

40 A B Bc D
16 Bc B A D
19 B Bc A D
25 Bc A B D

> Also, if a method can only be shown to fail UUCC when there are
> equal defeats, or pair-ties other than the tie or near-tie
> between B & Bc, that failure wouldn't be relevant to public
> elections.

Is this your response to the example above?  I hope your not saying
that a method can pass UUCC just by forcing the change to pass
through a tie position.  Is that what you're saying?
 
> By the way, it true that I'm the only person interested in those
> criteria or who has worked on them. Steve Eppley defined GSFC &
> BC (the generalization that underlies SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC),
> and proposed other wordings for some of those.

So I've been informed.
 
> And I believe that there's a general consensus here that the
> properties measured by those criteria are desirable, directly
> relating as they do to majority rule and getting rid of the
> lesser-of-2-evils problem. 

The point is that Russ Paielli's page might be construed as putting
these criteria forth as somehow standard ways for judging methods,
when in fact they are only known, let alone agreed to by very few
people.

The idea that those criteria "directly relate" to agreed upon
properties is too vague for me to respond.

> Russ Paielli has asked for more opinions
> about those criteria. If you have an opinion, send it to me, and
> I'll forward it to him. Or you could write to him directly if his
> website, www.electionmethods.org, gives an address for direct
> reply. And, Blake, next time it would be great if you would send
> me a copy of your criticism of the criteria when you write to
> a website owner,
> because surely you don't feel that your arguments' convincingness
> depends on their not being replied to.  But thanks for pointing out
> SrDSC's unexpected results. Don't hesitate to let me know if
> you believe that a criterion works other than as I thought it did.
> Why mention it to the website owner but not to me.

First, in this case, I did tell Russ Paielli that he should email you
about SrDSC.  The main reason I didn't go to you first, is I didn't
think you'd agree with me.  I was delighted when you did.

But if, as a general rule, you're saying that any time I write to
anyone who has already been exposed to your ideas, I have to inform
you, then no, I don't agree with that.  The idea that I might contact
such people by having you forward to them is absurd.

Am I afraid of rebuttal?  When you explain your ideas to people like
Mr. Paielli, do you think, "Oh dear, Blake might disagree with me
here.  I better write him to give a rebuttal."  I haven't received
any
such letters. 

I don't mind rebuttal, and I expect that anyone before
changing their mind would ask you for a response.  However, I like
the idea that someone might read,  and try to understand one of my
emails, pointing out anything confusing first before they get buried
in lengthy rebuttals and stop paying attention.

Perhaps you see Russ Paielli as like an internet provider, hosting
your web page.  His site gives the clear impression that he agrees
with and is promoting its contents, although he acknowledges
contributions by others.  I therefore see it as natural to question
him directly on those contents.

> By the way, did you write to Barnsdale too?

No.

---
Blake Cretney