[EM] two bit ratings
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
>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
>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
More information about the Election-Methods