[EM] Participation criterion: a thought

[Diana Galletly]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote:

> I don't know whether you're right or not about the relationship between
> Participation and Consistency.  But in most Participation failure examples
> I've seen, the same candidate is not the winner in both sets.  For example,
> for MCA:

Ah yes.  I think I have been led astray by the fact that most of the
participation failure examples I had seen have in fact had the same
winner for both sets but not the combined one.

> 5 A>B>C
> 4 B>C>A
>
> add in: 2 C>A>B
>
> The winner of the two sets of votes are A and C.  Combined, the winner is B.

Schulze and RP don't tickle that one, I notice :-)

> So perhaps Consistency is an easier-to-satisfy version of Participation?
> Seems to be what you're saying.

I certainly think there's some kind of close relationship between them,
although it would appear not in the form I originally hoped.  Back to the
drawing board!

> I would note that we can't easily define Consistency by changing a couple
> of words in [Markus'] definition.  We have to evaluate the method's winner
> for the new ballots, not simply see who's ranked first, for instance.

I'll think about it further ...

Diana.