[EM] Meaning of preference

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Some people object to criteria that mention preference--Markus uses "prefer" 
where others would say "vote", but he objects if I use it to mean what most 
of us mean by "prefer". There seems to be an academic rule, that no one can 
give a reason for, that criteria shouldn't say anything about preferences. 
Markus says that the academics don't write criteria that way, but why is it 
necessary to copy them?

But I'd like to say something about what preference means:

A statement that some particular voter prefers X to Y is a statement of an 
order relation between X & Y, for that voter. For the purposes of my 
criteria, "prefer" needn't mean more than that.

Preferences needn't be transitive. The only requirement is that a particular 
voter can't prefer X to Y and Y to X.

Some order-relations aren't defined as being for some 3rd party. For 
instance if Smith is taller than Jones, it isn't necessary to say that Smith 
is taller than Jones "for" someone else. He's just taller, and that's all 
that needs to be said. But preference, as defined above, is defined for a 
voter.

That's plain enough from the sentence itself. But if you don't like 
preference because you feel that it's difficult to define precisely, what 
I'm saying is that that nonspecific definition is all that's needed.
It doesn't matter what the order-relation is, and it doesn't matter how it 
relates to the person for whom it's stated, as long as those details, 
whatever they are, are constant with respect to the election.  My criteria 
work even with that nonspecific definition of preference.

Of course, in places where I've said "likes X more than Y", or something 
like that, it should be reworded using the word "prefers".

That sounds like what Markus said about preference, but the difference is 
that he was using "prefer" where most of us would say "vote". In my 
criteria, I use it for what most of us would actually call "prefer".

It wasn't really necessary to spell out the meaning of a voter preferring X 
to Y, because what I said was self-evident. I just wanted to emphasize that 
no more definition of preference is needed.

Of course we know what preference means. Someone prefers one presidential 
candidate to another if s/he would rather the first candidate be president 
instead of the 2nd one. But then someone could quibble with what "rather" 
means. My answer to that has always been that we can't and needn't define 
every word we use. That's what the dictionary is for.

Sure, dictionaries have circular sequences of definitions, and even 
mathematical terms & symbols are defined in terms of words too.  But it's 
enough to at least define things that aren't in the dictionary, or which are 
meant differently from their dictionary definition.

Or a definition using a hypothetical experiment: If, should  that person 
have the opportunity to appoint X or Y as president, s/he would appoint X, 
then s/he prefers X to Y as president.

But if you aren't comfortable with the meaning of preference, then that's 
why I suggested the above definition that doesn't define it any farther than 
as an  order relation between 2 candidates, for a voter.

By the way, I haven't defined voting a preference as explicitly as I should:

A voter votes a preference for X over Y if: 1) S/he prefers X to Y, and 2) 
S/he votes X over Y.

A voter falsifies a preference if s/he votes X over Y and doesn't prefer X 
to Y.


Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed 
Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/