[EM] Criteria that don't mention preferences?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

>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.

Markus replied:

Such considerations belong to the motivation of the criteria.

I reply:

It isn't entirely clear what you mean. For example, some of us would like to 
require a method to not give voters defensive strategic need to bury their 
favorite, at least under conditions under which there are methods that won't 
do that.  Are you saying that that requirement can be made by a motivational 
statement instead of by the criteriion. That would be an odd statement for 
you to make,  because motivational statements aren't usually considered to 
be for making requirements. Criteria do that.

Or are you saying that the requirement shouldn't be made at all?

Maybe you're saying that the motivational statement should express the 
desire to have that requirement, accompanying a criterion that doesn't make 
that requirement?

If that's what you mean then I repeat that you can speak of what your own 
favorite criteria "should" or should not do, but you're wrong when you say 
what others' criteria should or should not require. Apparently my criteria 
require something that you don't want to require. It's your business what 
you want to require. As I said, you're wrong when you say what others 
shouldn't require.

But let me guess: Are you saying that you could write criteria that are 
equivalent to my criteria that mention preference and/or sincere voting, but 
that your equivalent criteria wouldn't mention preference or sincerity, but 
would only speak of ballots, votes, without mention of preference or 
sincerity?

You've made that claim several times in the past. I've asked you to show us 
how you'd write such criteria. You've never done so.

So I ask you again: How would you write criteria that are equivalent to my 
criteia that mention preferences and sincere voting, so that your equivalent 
criteria don't mention preference or sincerity, but only mention actual 
ballots and cast votes?

You can start with Condorcet's Criterion.

Previously you gave us a CC,  claiming it to be equivalent to mine, but 
there was a problem: Plurality passes the CC that you wrote. So we won't 
count that, and we'll let you try again.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 
   http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1