[EM] This is what I'm talking about: Your suggestion to replace SDSC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You'd said that my criteria could be reworded so as to not mention sincere 
preferences, only mentioning actual cast votes.

I asked you to write such a criterion.

You said a few things about SDSC and then said this:

I would call

   "If more than half of the voters prefer alternative y over
   alternative x, then that majority must have some way of voting
   that ensures x will not be elected and does not require any of
   them to rank y equal to or over any alternatives preferred over y."

the "motivation" of this criterion and

    "Any ordering of the alternatives must be an admissible vote,
    and if more than half of the voters rank y over x and x no higher
    than tied for bottom, then x must not be elected."

the "definition" of this criterion.

I reply:

Don't say that you weren't suggesting that as a replacement for SDSC, 
because your "motivation" sounds too much like SDSC for you to be able to 
reasonably make that denial.

You were offering your criterion as an alternative to SDSC, after I'd asked 
you to write a criterion equivalent to mine but without mentioning sincere 
preferences.

Now, as for whether BeatpathWinner fails your criterion, I hadn't paid 
attention to the phrase
"...and votes x no higher than bottom"

I haven't had an opportunity to examine whether BeatpathWinner can fail your 
criterion with that phrase in it.

But it doesn't really matter, because that phrase doesn't keep Plurality 
from passing your criterion.

Because Plurality doesn't pass SDSC, your criterion isn't equivalent to 
SDSC.

As I said, I'd asked you to write a criterion equivalent to mine, but 
without mentioning sincere preferences. You said a few words about SDSC and 
then defined your criterion, offering it as a substitute for SDSC.

No you didn't name it SDSC. You suggested it as a replacement for SDSC, 
apparently believing that it's a votes-only criterion that is equivalent to 
SDSC.

But that criterion isn't equivalent to SDSC, because Plurality passes your 
criterion.

And if an "admissible vote" has to be one that isn't a dominated strategy 
for the person who votes it, then your critrerion isn't even a votes-only 
criterion, because dominated strategy is defined in terms of sincere 
preference.

(But I don't claim to know what "admissibe" means. The above paragraph is of 
interest only if admissible means what I said in that paragraph).

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
What are the 5 hot job markets for 2004? Click here to find out. 
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/WPI_WhereWillWeFindJobsIn2004.htm?siteid=CBMSN3006&sc_extcmp=JS_wi08_dec03_hotmail1