[EM] MinMax (pairwise opposition) and Approval

[Craig Carey]

At 03\03\09 20:53 +0100 Sunday, Kevin Venzke wrote:
 >Looking at Schulze's example of:
...
 >
 >Approval for a candidate is calculated as the number
 >of ballots on which he is not ranked last.  (Ties are
...

"last" (?). That may be an entirely different "Approval"
word.

---------------------


At 03\03\09 19:44 +0100 Sunday, Kevin Venzke wrote:
 > --- Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz> a écrit : >
...
 >If Approval isn't preferential, I certainly don't
 >think FPTP is.


The Approval method gives the same internal weighting to the
last preference that is equal to the weighting of the
first preference.

So it really does not seem to be a preferential method since
it is full ignoring preference information.

Differing from that are methods like: Borda, STV, SNTV/FPTP.


 >              It only looks at one preference.  It
 >also, incidentally, violates FBC.  Do you agree with
 >that statement?  Perhaps I can define FBC in such a
 >way that you'll see that certain methods fail it.
 >

Mr Venzke has GOT IT -- the definition of FBC.

To honour that, I shall now write Mr Venkze's name in upper
case, like this: KEVIN VENKZE.

That is an interim thing, until the VENKZE definition of FBC
is ported onto a QE solver so that there can't be much doubt
on whether it is defined or not.

I hope that Mr VENKZE is as quick as possible at getting the
definition out.

The words "Perhaps I can define FBC" are perhaps only about
a symbolic transforming of the definition that was held.

Scandals about wrong thinking of OSSIPOFFists is sometimes
interesting too.


----------------

Where is Blake Cretney's comment asserting that MMC would
oppose monotonicity?.

Mr Cretney could come up with a weaker definition of
monotonicity. I guess that he would not since rejecting the
idea that methods are to be axiomaticly derived. That leads
to a rejection of the idea that Mr Cretney can correctly
assess rules and know which should never be used. Mr Cretney
maybe believes in using guessing but packaging it up as
intellectual caution. However we should not accept that
guessing about >10,000,000 dimension polytopes is a
trustable perfected art. So we can drop back to the view that
Mr Cretney's MMC is not checked.

However the Election Methods List has a solution for all
such problems -- the absent reply.

----------------

I was wondering if Americans would complain about my loose
comments about Americans, but nothing happened.


----------------

I spotted MIKE OSSIPOFF again : the central thinker of the
whole list, carefully refusing to reply to my question
asking him to show how 2 candidate FPTP can be checked by
OSSIPOFF's own FBC.

That was cute how FBC first appeared in Feb 2000, and Mr
MIKE OSSIPOFF beat the appearance of FBC by 1 paragraph,
when producing the first seemingly untrue claim about FBC.

In law, a correspondence is the stating of the purpose first.




Craig Carey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes