[EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi James,

 --- James Green-Armytage <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu> a écrit : 
> Definition of strong majority rule criterion: If voters cast ballots
> sincerely, and the voting method in question always chooses a member of
> the sincere Smith set, the method passes the strong majority rule
> criterion. Otherwise, the method fails the strong majority rule criterion.

You don't need to suppose that ballots are cast sincerely, since there is
no way to fill out ballots such that they couldn't possibly be sincere. If
a method fails Smith for any set of ballots, it must fail your criterion.

So this criterion isn't different from the "Smith criterion."

> >In other words, majority loses its meaning, the "more 
> >than half of the voters" meaning that it has in its accepted use. 
> 
> 	Another accepted use is "more than half of the voters who express a
> preference between two options/candidates". That's the definition I
> choose. I realize that you don't agree with it, but at least my reasoning
> is made clear to you. One benefit of this kind of definition is that it
> assures that a batch of spoiled ballots cannot rob a defeat of "majority"
> status.
> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Neutrality_of_Spoiled_Ballots

Do you mean "spoiled" in the sense meant in that article? Because I don't
think there is a danger that many voters will vote everyone equal, and even
if they do, I don't think it is a big deal if this breaks some majorities.

I doubt it is useful to identify the Smith set with "majority rule," unless
"majority" as in ">50% of all the votes" is not a useful idea.

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
__________________________________________________________________
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/