[EM] Criteria

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

Election methods are usually defined as a function from a given input
(e.g. a set of partial rankings of the candidates) to a given output
(e.g. a probability distribution on the set of candidates).

I reply:

For practical public purposes we can say that the output is a set of 
candidates (nearly always just one), because probabilistic methods aren't 
proposable, and because we needn't concern ourselves with tiebreakers with 
public methods, with which ties are vanishingly unlikely. So for public 
proposals it's better just to keep whatever tiebreaker is already on the 
books. Usually it's Random Candidate ("drawing lots"),and that's fine, 
because there will practically never be a tie.

Markus continued:

Markus continued:

Where this
input comes from is of no concern for the analysis of this election
method.

I reply:

So if for Democrat to beat Republican, it's necessary for Nader-preferrers 
to falsify a preference for Democrat over everyone, including Nader, you're 
saying that isn't important.

All methods are defined in terms of ballot-input.  For you personally, it 
doesn't matter if voters have to bury their favorite in order to make a 
greatrer-evil lose. Of course you have a right to your own standards. But 
you're wrong when you say what should be of concern for others.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here. 
https://broadband.msn.com