[EM] Re: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #502 - 8 msgs

[Richard Moore]

Mike wrote:
> Richard--
> 
> You said:
> 
> It occurred to me that the phrase "The method allows full ranking of
> all candidates" might be sufficient, instead of the more difficult
> wording of my last message, depending on the correct interpretation of
> the following:
> 
> "votes sincerely"
> 
> and
> 
> "falsely voting two candidates equal"
> 
> 
> I reply:
> 
> That's your business entirely, and I don't have an opinion on it. For me to 
> judge your criteria with those wording changes, you'd have to send to me the 
> full wording of the criteria.

But my statements of the criteria don't have those phrases, and won't 
have them in the future.

> When you speak of the correct interpretation of those two phrases above, I 
> can answer about "votes sincerely", but not about "falsefly voting two 
> candidates equal", because no criterion of mine contains the phrase "falsely 
> voting 2 candidates equal". Maybe one of yours does. If so, then you must 
> specify what you mean by it.

Mike, I am not attributing the phrase to you and there's no need for 
you to try to attribute it to me. It's from the electionmethods.org 
site. It was my impression that, though you may not be the author, you 
are knowledgeable about the content of that site. But since you don't 
seem to recognize the words at all, it's possible I was wrong about 
that. Here's the  statement from the website:

"Strong Defensive Strategy Criterion (SDSC)
"Statement of Criterion

"If a majority prefers one particular candidate to another, then they 
should have a way of voting that will ensure that the other cannot 
win, without any member of that majority reversing a preference for 
one candidate over another or falsely voting two candidates equal."
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Is it that you didn't know that I've defined sincere voting here, or are we 
> displaying a little dishonesty?

I can't answer for both of us ("we"), but I'm not. Anyway, the fact 
that they aren't your words does not make it dishonest to ask what 
their meaning is. That's just a non sequitur and hinting at an ad hominem.

I wasn't aware that you had defined that phrase on this list in a way 
that is different from the website. This may come as a shock to you, 
but I don't have time to read every word you post, Mike! In fact, I've 
read only a few of your recent posts. I spend considerably less time 
reading this list than I once did.

> My definition doesn't say "already specified". Here's my definition:
> 
> A voter votes sincerely if s/he doesn't falsify a preference or fail to vote 
> a sincere preference that the balloting system in use would have allowed hir 
> to vote in addition to the preferences that s/he actually did vote.
> 
> A voter falsifies a preference if s/he votes X over Y, but doesn't prefer X 
> to Y.
> 
> A voter votes a preference for X over Y if s/he votes X over Y.
> 
> You already know how I defined voting X over Y, and how you define it. Take 
> your pick.
> 
> [end of definition of sincere voting]

Good, that's takes away the ambiguity that's in the site's definition. 
I didn't know if "preferences already specified" meant "preferences 
specified", which would agree with your definition, or if it meant 
preferences specified in a top-to-bottom order (i.e., if only four 
preferences are allowed, then the top three preferences would have to 
be specified, with the remainder tied for last, rather than tying 
several candidates at the top and specifying the bottom three to 
qualify as a sincere vote).

> Ballot 1: A>B>C=D=E>F
> Ballot 2: A>B=C>D=E>F
> Ballot 3: A>B=C=D>E>F

> So the answer to your question is: By my definition of sincere voting, those 
> 3 ballots are sincere.

I agree. Thanks,

Richard