[EM] issues IRV Condorcet Approval

[Rob Speer]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:37:38PM -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> This voter still regrets having participated because the vote was 
> meaningless since they set the cutoff in the wrong spot ending up 
> with a worse result then what they wanted to happen which would have 
> been to give a clear win to A.

You are failing to understand the Participation criterion.

It states that there is no case when a voter would get a less-desired
outcome by voting sincerely than they would by staying home.

You want it to be that there is no case that a voter would get a
more-desired outcome by voting _differently_.

Perhaps that's why you stated that the Participation criterion was an
unattainable level of perfection. With your redefinition of it, that's
what it is. You could even call that criterion you've come up with the
Unattainable Perfection criterion.
-- 
Rob Speer