[EM] Request for sincerity formulae and 2 sincerity numbers

[Craig Carey]

At 03:31 00.09.13 +0000 Wednesday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

>In a reply to Markus I spoke of minimizing need for insincerity.
>When I say that I want criteria that measure how well a method
>minimizes need for insincerity, I mean that I'd like to
>minimize the degree of insincerity needed, and it would be good
>for that protection to extend to as many voters in as many
>situations as possible.
>
>FBC doesn't in any way limit who is protected. SARC only


FBC is a dead rule. These rules are not self-repairing, etc.



------------------------------------------------------------------

I ASK MIKE TO DEFINE SINCERITY FOR 2 ELECTION EXAMPLES


I make this request to Mike Ossipoff.

Please define sincerity, in the case that the votes are all known,
and the set of winners is also all known. The preferential voting
method could be the Approval Vote, but the method is not actually
known. For a given set of winners and a given set of ballot count
ratios, it does not matter if the vote is the Approval Vote or not,
provided that the winners are just those that the Approval Vote
itself would have found. So sincerity of voters is independent of
the method. Note that so that no mistake occurs. Sincerity, unless
it is assessed by spirits, is a function with 2 parameters.

Sincerity is measured in real numbers?. It could be complex numbers.
You haven't been explaining you idea of sincerity at all well. That
might as well end, since it seems to not lead to anything of true
merit.

THE QUESTION,
I ask this question under the Rob Lanphier rules requiring a direct
relevant response.

What the 2 sincerities of the voters in these 2 elections?:

[Election 1]
trunc(V,{C,D}) =

      abc    ABC.
      abd    ABD.
      ac     AC..
      ad     AD..
      bac    BAC.
      bad    BAD.
      bc     BC..
      bd     BD..
      c      C...
      d      D...

[Election 2]
trunc(V,{B,C,D}) =

      ab     AB..
      ac     AC..
      ad     AD..
      b      B...
      c      C...
      d      D...

ab = (abc+abd), b = (bac+bad+bc+bd)

If [1] is too difficult, then just answer the 2nd problem, if you
can. If you can't, please tell us why.

(Notation: the terms on the left ("abc", etc.) are single variables
that have values that are real numbers. Their values can be
negative. On the right hand side, the notation "BAC." defines an
ordered list (B,A,C), representing a preferential voting paper
marked like this: (A 2nd, B 1st, C 3rd).

What is sincerity (or "Ossipoff-Sincerity"), Mike?. Can it be
defined?. If not, why not?. The mailing list has heard much on
sincerity. I want to know if my comment that sincerity had units
was true. Even if you answer my perhaps easy requests here, I would
still guess that you have multiple definitions, and another sincerity
does have units. There is a great lack of clarity on what you mean
by sincerity. It is something to be maximised, it seems, so it will
be real numbers (whether or not having physical dimensions). If
these questions can't be answered, then can you tell us whether the
quantity is: (a) discrete?, or (b) continuous?.

Have you got any existing research into sincerity that you can copy
into the mailing list?.

This message's questions are retracted to the extent reasonable
if Mike knows that the Russ Paielli sincerity rules are due to
collapse or be withdrawn. This is a list on mathematics of
preferential voting, not ideas that had to be withdrawn because only
a bit undefined.

If you do not wish to answer, please state why that would be the case.



G. A. Craig Carey, Auckland, New Zealand
http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifpp.htm