# [EM] Margins

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Jun 20 14:11:01 PDT 2004

```If margins was the same as WV, WHY would the two names exist, or rouse the
debate they have caused?

Why have YOU changed your opinion since January, when you called WV
preferable (and therefore different from margins)?

Dave

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 04:28:52 +0200 (CEST) Kevin Venzke wrote:

> Dave,
>
> --- Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> a écrit :
>
>>>>>>If the voter leaves two candidates unranked,
>>>>>>don't count that as a half vote for each, count it
>>>>>>as zero for each.  But if the voter explicitly ranks
>>>>>>two candidates as equal, count that as a half vote
>>>>>>for each.
>>>>>>
>>>Since you argue for it, I want to name it after you.  Unless someone
complains,
>>>I am going to start calling it the "Ketchum" measurement of defeat
strength.
>>>
>>>Since Ketchum is a compromise between WV and Margins, it doesn't make
sense to say
>>>you advocate it "for both wv and margins."  It only makes sense to
>>>
>>NO SALE!!!  Our debate has been as to how to count votes.  HOWEVER, WV and
>>Margins differ as to how to interpret the counts after they have been
>>done.
>>
>
> The interpretation of the counts is exactly the same, when Margins is
defined
> in terms of giving 1/2 votes.  Giving half-votes and then using the WV
> interpretation of the counts == Margins.
>
>
>> I have NOT SUGGESTED ANY change in the interpretation, so they
>>remain different and could not survive a shared name.
>>
>
> Let's say we apply your preferred rule to WV, and let's call the resulting
> method "WV-Ketchum."
>
> Also, let's say we apply your preferred rule to Margins, and call the
> resulting method "Margins-Ketchum."
>
> Then WV-Ketchum and Margins-Ketchum are exactly the same thing.
>
> That is why I say that it makes no sense to argue for your count rule
"for both
> WV and Margins," because your count rule is a complete replacement for
WV and
> Margins.
>
>
>>>I think you doubt this, so I'll give some brief definitions to make this
>>>clearer:
>>>
>>>WV: Equal-ranking and truncation result in no vote for either candidate.
>>>
>>For WV it would be destructive to include truncated candidates as if the
>>voters had expressed an interest in them, so leave them out.
>>
>>Where the voter has explicitly done equal ranking, I continue my claim
>>that these should be given half counts, consistent with the voters likely
>>doing about half A>B and half B>A if A=B was not permitted - and ending up
>>with comparable counts.
>>
>
> Ok, but when this is done, the method is more like Margins than WV.
>
>
>>>Margins: Equal-ranking and truncation result in 1/2 vote for each
candidate.
>>>
>>Assuming I understand the rules, margins CARES NOT about such counts, so
>>doing them unlike WV puzzles.
>>
>>I would do the counts here the same as in WV, so that the two methods
>>differ only where there is a reason for difference.
>>
>
> I see the problem: You don't realize that using Margins gives you exactly
> the same results as when you use WV but give half-votes in cases of equal
> ranking.
>
> I will show this with some examples if you want.
>
>
>>>measure     ranked equal      truncated
>>>Margins      1/2 vote          1/2 vote
>>>
>
> Kevin Venzke
> stepjak at yahoo.fr

--
davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.

```