[EM] 3 ways of writing certain criteria

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

The reason why some want to say that Plurality allows rankng all the 
candidates is because that's one way to write criteria that will act as 
expected and intended.

Certain criteria, like the defensive strategy criteria, and the Condorcet 
Criterion, and some others, need one of the 3 approaches that I'll list 
here. I'm not saying that there aren't other ways (or that there are).

1. Ridiculous fictious pretense that Plurality & Approval allow ranking all 
the candidates.
2. Arbitrary rules-requirement that says "I like rank methods, so I decree 
that only they pass."
3. Mentioning sincere preferences, and sometimes stipulating sincere voting.

The criteria written in those 3 ways are equivalent. One chooses which of 
those approaches makes the most sense.

The first approach, the ridiculous fiction, simply isn't true.

The second approach makes for an unconvincing criterion. Why do only rank 
methods pass criteria written  in that way? Anyone can write a criterion 
calling for any kind of rule, and then, guess what, a method having that 
rule is "better" than other methods, by that criterion. And it doesn' t mean 
a damn thing.

Only rank methods pass my Condorcet Criterion and the majority defensive 
strategy criteria, but not by decree. My criteria say nothing about what 
rules a method should have. Only rank methods pass my CC & majority 
defensive criteria, for no  other reason than because other methods fail to 
meet those criteria's results requrements. Results requirements that express 
and speak to voters' and electoral reformers' concerns.

By the way, how would you write FBC as a votes-only criterion?

If you do that, then I'll have to admit that you beat me to it.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium 
Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/