# [EM] Woodall's Whacky & Zany Criteria

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 26 12:29:38 PST 2004

```The other day I  mentioned how, in a vote between X & Y, with 2 voting X
over Y, and 1 voting Y over X, and 98 refusing to express a preference,
symmetric completion would give us a majority vote for X over Y.  A
majority, when only 2/100 people voted X over Y.

If you think that's funny, then what abouit this?: Chris claims that if
symmetiric completion isn't a good thing, that doesn't mean that the
Symmetric Completion Criterion isn't a good thing. No, the SCC just says
that a method should either do symmetric completion, or else give the same
results as if it did symmetric completion. :-)

To Chris, that criterion's merit is independent of the desirability or
undesirability of symmetric completion.

What about Later No Harm (LNH)? As I understand LNH, it says that adding B
to your ranking, below A, shouldn't be able to keep A from winning.

But what's the point of adding B to your ranking? To keep someone worse than
B from winning.  But, for instance, with IRV, your pairwise preference for B
over C, when ranking B in 2nd place, might not even be counted (by that
word's dictionary definition, Jan Kok). Sometimes, if you actually want to
keep C from winning, you have to put B in 1st place, over A, in IRV. And
that _can_ harm A. It only takes half as many mistaken compromisers to give
away A's win in IRV as it would require in Approval.

So this freedom to rank B without harming A is rather hollow, since B in 2nd
place doesn't reliably give the method anything that will be counted against
C.

We don't rank B because we're there to make B win. We'd rather that A win.
We rank B to keep someone worse than B from winning. Hey, wait a minute,
that's what the majority defensive strategy criteria say too. As opposed to
the more cosmetic act of merely ranking B.

And what about the criteria's requirements? LNH says that we don't want to
harm A. FBC speaks of not having incentive to vote someone over your
favorite. My original definition of voting X over Y said:

A voter votes X over Y if s/he votes in such a way that it's possible to
contrive a configuration of other people's ballots such that if we delete
everyone but X & Y from the ballots, X is the unique winner if & only if we
count that voter's ballot.

[end of definition]

Since there are only 2 candidates left on the ballot, we could say "...X is
the unique winner instead of Y".

Though that definition specifies removing everyone but X & Y from the
ballot, it's obvious that voting in that way could also probably just as
likely change the winner from Y to X even without removing everyone else
from the ballot. That removal was mainly motivated to make the definition
apply as expected to nonmonotonic methods.

So then FBC, and the other defensive strategy criteria are also requiring no
harm to one's favorite, or no harm in the form of changing the winner from a
more preferred candidate to a less preferred one.

So, what I'm saying is that if we change LNH so that it makes more sense, so
that it speaks of keeping someone worse than B from winning instead of the
hollow goal of merely ranking B, then we get the defensive strategy
criteria, or something very similar to them.

This suggests that the defensive strategy criteria do a better job of
measuring for the standard(s) that, consciously or unconsciously LNH is
based on.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here.

```