[EM] two bit ratings

Richard Moore rmoore4 at home.com
Tue Sep 25 19:03:24 PDT 2001

Forest Simmons wrote:
 >>Why should the CC definition include the word "sincere" 
at >>all? Isn't the use of "sincere CW", coupled with the 
 >>conditional "all voters vote sincerely", redundant? What 
 >>does this definition say that is different from "If 
 >>there's an expressed CW, then the expressed CW must win"?
 >This definition has its problems, too.  By the rules of 
 >classical logic,
 >if a method doesn't allow the expression of a  CW, then 
 >that method would
 >satisfy this definition.

So true. I didn't notice that when I wrote my statement, 
since I was concentrating on exorcising that "sincere" 
demon. Thanks for catching this.

 >So perhaps we should say that a method satisfies the CC if 
 >and only if
 >(1) the method's ballots do allow complete expression of 
 >preference order
 >among the candidates
 >(2) whenever a candidate is an expressed CW, then that 
 >candidate must be the method's winner.
 >That ought to cover it.
 >In that case it would be OK to allow truncation, but not 
OK >to force truncation.

I'm for allowing truncation in Condorcet methods. The 
existence of strategy options that don't involve preference 
reversal shouldn't be seen as a major problem. Even forcing 
truncation isn't a terrible thing (though it no longer meets 
the definition); what is Approval but Condorcet forced into 
two levels?


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list