[EM] Other criteriion for reference method?
MIKE OSSIPOFF
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 9 20:15:54 PST 2002
Because I still don't fully understand the Monotonicity definition self
reference problem,
and the extent to which it limits Monotonicity definitions, I'm printing
that letter out, to
study the matter further. But it's occurred to me that the Participation
Criterion might
be a better test of a reference method than the Consistency Criterion is.
Participation is so similar to Monotonicity that people have asked me what
the difference
is between those 2 criteria.
If I understand Participation, here's a wording of its definition:
Participation:
Adding to the count some ballots that vote Smith over Jones should never
change
the winner from Smith to Jones.
[end of definition]
Someone could say "identical ballots" instead of "ballots", but Plurality,
Approval, CR,
& some other methods pass without that addition, and it seems to
unnecessarily weaken
the criterion.
Of course one important difference between Participation & Monotonicity is
that
Participation is much briefer & simpler to define.
All the methods that occur to me now that pass Participation are methods
that are
considered to pass Monotonicity, but the reverse isn't true.
Consistency too is defined in terms of actual votes, isn't it? Is this
Consistency?:
If an election region is divided into subregions, and a regionwide election
is held,
but we also count in each subregion, to determine who'd win if only the
subregion's
ballots were counted, then if a certain candidate wins in each subregion,
s/he should
also win in the overall region, counting all the ballots.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list