[EM] Markus: MMC. Why WV vs Margins matters.

[Adam Tarr]

Mike Ossipoff wrote:

>Either you should speak of a majority _voting_ the candidates in S
>over all the other candidates, or else, when saying only that they
>prefer the candidates in S to all the others, you should add the 
>stipulation that they vote sincerely.
>
>The latter wording is better, since then we don't have the embarrassment
>of having to say "Don't apply this criterion to Plurality, because
>if you do, Plurality will pass."

An alternative way to avoid this is to define plurality as a ranked-ballot 
method, where the winner is the candidate with the most first-place 
votes.  Of course, since plurality ballots don't actually have spaces to 
list your uncounted lower choices, this definition is just an artifice to 
get the voter's sincere preferences onto the ballot.

I remember you saying that you don't like defining it this way, but to me 
it's just another way of talking about sincere preferences.  It gives you 
roughly the same conclusions as talking about sincere preferences 
does.  Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

-Adam


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em