[EM] issues IRV Condorcet Approval

[Rob Speer]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:40:58PM -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> >Interpret "sincere vote" like this: any vote where the voter has a
> >preference order in mind, and everyone the voter approved is ranked
> >higher in that preference order than everyone the voter disapproved.
> >
> >In other words, every voter can put their cutoff anywhere, and Approval
> >still passes Participation.
> 
> This definition of 'sincere vote' is quite lacking and I do not accept it.
> 
> By setting the cutoff anywhere, it can cause an option to win that 
> every voter absolutely did not want to see win.

I am not denying that fact. I agree with it. But that fact has nothing
to do with participation or sincere voting.

I simply wanted to state an all-inclusive concept of "sincere votes"
that would apply to Approval and would be useful for determining
properties like Participation without taking strategies into account.

Is there some actual flaw in my definition, instead of the flaws in
Approval you love to point out? Is there a reason that a vote made using
a preference order and a cutoff would _not_ be sincere (REGARDLESS of
whether it is strategically useful)?

It seems that you are being obstructive of discussion about Approval
simply because you don't like it.  I'm simply trying to make a
definition that can be used for further discussion, and you for some
reason attack that definition.
-- 
Rob Speer