[EM] ranked methods

[Kevin Venzke]

 --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit : > 
> Plurality is a rank method? Ok, now I'm going to define a new method, which 
> I call Ranked Ossipoff Choice (ROC).  Here are its rules:
> 
> Voters vote rankings. The rankings are collected from the voters. Then I 
> make the choice, disregarding the rankings.
> 
> By your reasoning, that's a rank method too.

ROC is indeed a rank method.  It's just one that fails anonymity.

What's the point of making exceptions for methods that don't accept a
full ranking, when the omitted rankings wouldn't even make a difference
in the result?

The methods that pose problems are those that require some input from the
voter other than a ranking.  Consider Approval, which arguably requires
a cutoff in addition to the ranking.  (Other interpretations have their own
problems.)  Is it possible to say whether Approval meets Clone-Winner?
Unless we have specific rules about how the cutoff may move in response
to the introduction of clones, I suppose we have to assume that Approval
fails this criterion.

For a more abstract example, suppose the method requires the voter to
label each candidate "red," "green," or "blue."  Unless we have rules about how 
and why labels may adjust in coordination with the rankings, we have to assume 
that the method fails every criterion.


Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr



	

	
		
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/