[EM] Re: Falsification & "completion"

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Fri Jan 23 19:16:02 PST 2004


I don't understand what prompted you to write such a puzzlingly irritated 
reply.  If I said something that offended you, do tell.

If you are angry that I didn't reply to your message showing that MMPO does 
have truncation incentive, I'll get that out of the way right now:

Mike seems to be right about MMPO and truncation incentive.

 --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit : > 
> You know, if you want to reply to a message, it would really be great if 
> you'd check that your intuitive or emotional feelings about it are justified 
> by things that are actually said in the message that you're replying to. One 
> thing that would help you to do that would be if you would state, in your 
> repy, your reasons for what you say. In that way, you could be sure that 
> there _are_ reasons for what you say. You could thereby avoid posting 
> statements for which you can't give a reason.

It sounds like you think I was arguing against you, but I was only trying
to be helpful.  Chris thought it was, but that doesn't mean I'm on anyone's

> But I did NOT say that the falsity of your "process" is the reason why the 
> criterion is objectionable. I noted that Chris said that Woodall doesn't 
> justify the criterion. I asked Chris if he could tell us why it's important 
> or even desirable for a method to meet the criteriion. We haven't heard from 
> him on that, so apparently he doesn't know why he believes that it's 
> important for a method to meet that criterion.
> But, that being said, you're mistaken when you say that the wrongness of the 
> falsification doesn't say anything about the merits of the criterion: A 
> criterion that says that a method should give the same result after you 
> falsify some preferences, falsify some of the rankings,  is a criterion that 
> lacks merit if we agree that falsification isn't a good thing.

Good points here, and you refrain from criticizing me.

> But where you're confused is: You believe that if those 2 scenarios should 
> have the same effect in determining a pairwise defeat between A & B, that 
> means that they should have the same effect for all purposes.

I didn't say I believed that.  Here you are doing the same thing you just
scolded me for.

> Apparently you haven't been paying any 
> attention to any of the Condorcet discussion on this list. It would be much 
> better if you'd lurk for a while, to get an idea of what we're talking 
> about, before you start expounding, and explaining the subject to us.

Here you do it again.  If I had said that apparently YOU hadn't been paying
attention to something, you would have given me hell for it.

I've been posting on this list since February.  I don't know why you think
I must not have paid attention to the Condorcet discussion.

> To you, what that means is that wv fails your criterion (You know, the 
> critrerion that neither you nor anyone else has justified).
> Unless you can show why it's important that a method meets SCC, we can 
> assume that it doesn't matter whether or not a method meets SCC.

I never advocated Symmetric-Completion or Margins.  You make that error
throughout your reply.  I can discuss something without advocating it,
can't I?

> and they have to do with majority rule: some of us< you see< believe that it 
> means something if a majority of all the voters have indicated that they 
> prefer x to y. apparently you and your woodall don"t consider that 
> important>

What Woodall or I consider important hasn't even been discussed.  You couldn't
back up that last sentence even if I asked you to.

> you ask me how "symmetrical completion" gives a different result? that"s how 
> it gives a different result>

I don't think I asked this.  It is a good answer, though.

I believe I asked, roughly, why it provides flawed results.  You can show
that it has bad effects with pairwise methods, but I remain interested in
finding a more general answer.

> you said:
> my interpretation is that a faction shouldn't spoil the election for 
> themselves
> because they opt to express strict preferences among their favorites, 
> instead of
> using approval strategy.
> I reply:
> That sounds like a desirable goal< though you have yet to show that it"s 
> more important than other desirable goals> you see< kevin< many criteria are 
> possible> many of them are mutually incompatible< and so it"s necessary to 
> choose which we consider more important>

I'm glad you can agree that it sounds desirable.  I think so, too.  I
don't think it's attainable, though, as I think it requires Strong FBC.

> do you want to meet your goal via the scc criterion or via the 
> symmetric completion process< or are you confused about the difference 
> between them?

Again with the condescending tone!

>>The idea is that the effect should be the
>I reply:
>So you're saying that the effect should be the same after you attribute to 
>the voter preferences that the voter didn't express.

That's correct, as long as "should" means "according to the Symmetric-
Completion criterion."

I haven't replied to a lot of what you wrote, because I already agreed
with it.

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr

Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list