[EM] 3 questions for Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

>It seems to me that you believe that criteria that are defined on
>the actually casted ballots and not on the sincere opinions of the
>voters don't say anything about the need for insincere voting.

I didn't say that. I merely said that Beatpath GMC says nothing
about protecting sincere voting or avoiding the need for
insincere voting.

>I don't agree with you

Ok, but remember that you're disagreeing with something that I
didn't say.

>because in praxi

In what?

>a criterion that is defined
>on more than the actually casted ballots cannot say anything that
>cannot be said by a criterion that is defined only on the actually
>casted ballots because --in so far as election methods are always
>defined on the actually casted ballots and not on the sincere
>opinions of the voters-- the fact that a given election method
>meets a given criterion must be reflected in the way in which this
>election method evaluates the actually casted ballots. Therefore
>whether a given election method meets SFC (resp. GSFC resp. WDSC
>resp. SDSC) must depend only on how this election method evaluates
>the actually casted ballots. Therefore it must be possible to
>define SFC (resp. GSFC resp. WDSC resp. SDSC) on the actually
>casted ballots.

I think you're saying that, for any criterion that mentions
sincere preferences, another criterion can be written that
doesn't mention sincere preferences, and which is met by everything
that meets the 1st criterion and is failed by everything that
fails the 1st criterion.

Even if that's true, that other criterion isn't saying the same
thing. It could be used to test for my criteria, but its value
would only be indirect, as a way of testing for the criteria that
say what I want to say. It would obscure the purpose of
the criterion.

According to you, a criterion shouldn't mention the sincere
CW, or stipulate sincere voting. When the Condorcet Criterion
is defined in accordance with your rule, it's met by Plurality.
So is Beatpath GMC.

You could just arbitrarily say, in the definition of Condorcet's
Criterion or Beatpath GMC, that nonranked methods fail the criterion,
by fiat. That would be awkwardly arbitrary.

Or, you could define Condorcet's method by saying:

If everyone votes sincerely [as I defined it a week or so ago]
and if there's a sincere CW, then that SCW should win.

You could define Beatpath GMC in an analogous way.

But then you've mentioned something other than actual votes.
Shame on you :-)

I don't know whether you have an additional way to make
the Condorcet Criterion or your Beatpath GMC apply to all
methods. I don't know if you have a way of doing that without
mentioning sincere preferences. If you do, I just haven't heard it
yet.

The same is true of BC. Arbitrarily saying that nonrank methods
fail wouldn't be so bad with BC, because, unlike Condorcet's
Criterion & Beatpath GMC, BC isn't claimed to be its own reason
for being: It's intended as a way of determining compliance with
the majority defensive strategy criteria. Plurality doesn't pass
any of those, and it's not unreasonable to arbitrary say that
nonrank methods fail BC. Or, if one wanted to, one could
seamlessly make BC apply to all methods in the way that I suggested
for Condorcet's Criterion & Beatpath GMC.

I should add that, though the definiton that I posted for
Participation says nothing about sincere preferences, the
Participation definition that you stated stipulates sincere voting
and the worsening of the outcomes with respect to the voter's
sincere preferences. So you don't do a good job of abiding by
your own rule.

You say that the defensive strategy criteria could be
defined mentioning only actual votes? It would seem that even
Condorcet's Criterion and your Beatpath GMC haven't defined in
that way, if we want them to reasonably apply to all methods without
an arbitrary failure-fiat for some methods.

I'd considered an approach to SFC that only spoke of actual votes,
rather than mentioning the sincere CW. But that doesn't say the
same thing. Mentioning the SCW more clearly tells what makes the
scenario possible. A criterion mentioning only votes, though
met & failed by the same methods, wouldn't tell what I wanted
to tell.

But even if those other criteria could be written,
it isn't clear what you think that would mean about criteria that
mention sincere preferences. You didn't say they aren't valid,
because you know that wouldn't be so. You didn't say they're
not clearly-defined, though you unsuccessfully tried to show that
2 of them were. So far, all we have is that you don't want to
discuss them. Suit yourself. We can assume, then, that you've
said the worst that you can about the defensive strategy criteria.

>When you have defined SFC, GSFC, WDSC and SDSC on
>the actually casted ballots, then we can discuss whether these
>criteria or BC or beat-path GMC should be used.

They wouldn't be the same criteria. They'd be different ones that
are met or failed by the same methods, but which don't say what
I want to say.

Discussion concluded.

You have the amusing conceit to tell me that we can discuss the
defensive strategy criteria when I've defined them so
that they make no mention of anything other than actual votes.
Look, I don't care if you discuss them or not. You're invited to,
so that we can show that you've done your best to try to
argue against them. Maybe the time has come when you have already
done that.

That's what we have to assume now.

That's as good a way as any to end the discussion.


By the way, you've been hopping from one criticism attempt to
another. When one fails, you try another.  You seem to be
desparately trying everything. You want to find fault with those
criteris so badly that it really shows.

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.