nkklrp at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 7 23:14:50 PST 2002
If I have a dyadic ballot marked "... A >> B ..." (ellipses before and
after denote preferences higher than A and lower than B), then I change
this to "... A >>> B ...", haven't I voted A higher on this second
ballot? Yet the greater-than symbols aren't really a mark that is
associated uniquely with A, they are associated with both A and B (and
for that matter, with all the other candidates). So I don't know how
to apply the definition to these ballots.
At first, my impression of that was "Oh-oh, as I'd at first feared, my
definition is only good for the familiar 4 ballotings--Approval, CR,
rankings, & Plurality."
But let's compare that ballot, with variable-strength preferences in the
with ordinary rankings. In a ranking, of course it's true that what you're
candidate A is in relation to the other candidates. But I can reply to that
that you're giving A a number that can be looked by itself, to tell how A is
on the ballot, without regard or comparison to anyone else. If you rank A in
then his number is 5. Can't we do the same with the dyadic ballot? How many
are below A on the ballot, and how many ">" marks are above them. If there
10 of those below him, and 4 above him, then I suggest that you've marked A
That tells his status in that ranking as a number that's only his. Another
would be to say that A is rated 10/14 on that ballot. That has the advantage
a single number, though my definition of a mark never said that it had to be
number rather than an ordered pair. Only that it's something that can be
without regard or comparison to other candidates, like a rank number, a
or a vote or lack of a vote.
It seems to me that that gets my definition out of that problem, doesn't it?
just as in a ranking the status of being ranked #5 has nothing to do with
who the other
candidates are, or how they're ranked compared to eachother, so A's (4,10)
or 10/14 says
something about A's status in the same way.
Probably my definition of marking someone on a ballot needs better wording.
definining it as how one votes a candidate, determned without regard or
to how he votes other candidates. Maybe "other candidates" should be
"any other particular candidate".
By how one votes a candidate, I mean how one follows the balloting
respect to that candidate.
Maybe I could have just said that how you mark a candidate is how you follow
balloting instructions with respect to that candidate, without reference to
other particular candidate. But the meaning of that is less obvious with
than with a ranking, where we follow the ballot instructions for Smith by
rank number 5. Of course that's what your objection was.
Maybe voting Smith higher could somehow be defined without the idea of
The definition apparently still needs work.
>But if we can't assume that the method being tested cooperates with tests,
>any criterion has a problem. Of course these definitions do have a problem
>especially easy to find methods for which they don't work as expected.
Perhaps it wasn't the clearest way to state my objection, but I was
getting at the idea that (to use an analogy) using method M to determine
if a change "votes Smith higher" for the purpose of deciding whether
method M is monotonic is like asking a student to grade his own papers.
Some students may be trustworthy enough for this exercise, but not all.
Likewise, a definition written in this manner might not always give
a meaningful result.
Yes, I see the problem now. It's something that hadn't occurred to me, and
I'll have to study. Monotonicity is more difficult that it seemed. It seemed
that it was
only necessary to make its obvious meaning explicit, but it turns out that
is far from clear. Might Monotonicity have to be dropped, if no satisfactory
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Election-Methods