[EM] Objections to majority

[Russ Paielli]

That's all well and good, but you can't hide from the fact that when you 
drop a pairwise defeat you are ignoring the majority of voters who voted 
in that particular pairwise race. That's right: you are IGNORING THE 
MAJORITY of the voters in that race. Why do you have such little respect 
for majorities, and what gives you the right to overrule them?

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> Paul Kislanko kislanko-at-airmail.net |EMlist| wrote:
> 
>> We're mixing terms and contexts again.
>>
>> One can define majority to include all eligible voters, in which case 
>> it is
>> entirely possible that no alternative achieves a majority because 
>> fewer than
>> 50 % of elegible voters participate in the election. No matter what 
>> method
>> is used to pick the selection of a majority of participants, it cannot be
>> said that the winner has been a elected by a majority.
> 
> 
> I reply:
> 
> ...What? You're not being very clear about what you mean there.
> 
> As for different kinds of majorities, I'll comment on that after I've 
> quoted both your and Russ's objections about that.
> 
> Russ said:
> 
> My sentiments exactly.
> 
> The usage of the word "majority" by some here seems a bit inconsistent
> to me. In a pairwise race, the majority that seems to matter to them is
> *not* a majority of voters who actually *voted* on that particular
> pairwise race -- but rather a majority of the total number of voters who
> voted for other pairwise races for the same office. In other words, a
> majority is defined relative to the *potential* rather than the *actual*
> number of voters.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> For determining whether Smith pairbeats Jones, or Jones pairbeats Smith, 
> only the ballots voting Smith over Jones or Jones over Smith are counted.
> 
> And yes, sometimes "a majority" is used as a replacement term for what 
> we here call a pairwise defeat.
> 
> But Russ needs to undestand that that isn't the only use of "Majority". 
> In the context of an election, the accepted meaning of "a majority" is a 
> set of voters consisting of more than half of the voters. No, Russ, that 
> isn't an inconsistency; it's just two different meanings.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> But wait just a minute.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Ok, Russ, we're patient.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> 
> If the majority that really matters is relative
> to the *potential* number of voters, then why isn't it defined relative
> to the total number of voters who voted in the entire election,
> including those who did not vote at all on that particular office? Or
> why is it not defined relative to the total number of *registered*
> voters? Better yet, why is it not defined relative to the total number
> of *eligible* voters, registered or not?
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Go for it. As you say, why not?
> 
> You'll find that, if you define a majority in one of those three other 
> ways, Margins will still fail the four majority defensive strategy 
> criteria, and SD, SSD, BeatpathWinner, MAM & RP will still pass all of 
> them, and PC will still pass the ones that it passes--SFC & WDSC.
> 
> In fact, I doubt that there would be any change in which method meets 
> the majority defensive strategy criteria.
> 
> But back to Russ's question: Why refer majority to the total number of 
> voters in a particular race instead of the total number of voters, 
> including the ones who didn't vote for that race, or the total number of 
> people registered to vote, or the total number eligible to register to 
> vote?
> 
> 1. As I said, it's the accepted meaning, in the context of an election, 
> when evaluating how many votes candidates got.
> 
> 2. Of the four meanings that you could consider, including those other 3 
> that Russ listed, the total number of voters who voted in a particular 
> race is the smallest number that defines a majority for which certain 
> important strategy guarantees can be made, by some methods.
> 
> 3. This is less important, but that definition of a majority simplifies 
> examples, requiring fewer variables in examples.
> 
> A set of voters consisting of more than half of the voters in a 
> particular race is a uniquely powerful set of voters. It's a set of 
> voters for which certain strategy guarantees can be made.
> 
> The majority defensive strategy criteria are about such guarantees. But 
> there are other such criteria. The familiair Majority Criterion 
> (sometimes called Majority Winner or Majority Favorite) is another. So 
> is the Mutual Majority Criterion.
> 
> Those guarantees are reason enough to have a name for the powerful set 
> of voters that consists of more than half of the voters.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> To put it another way, when a voter intentionally abstains from voting
> in a pairwise race, why is that voter still relevant in any way to the
> correct interpretation of the score of that race? That's a rhetorical
> question, because I'll bet that any answer will simply be a 
> rationalization.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Whom is that a question for? I don't have an answer to it. The methods 
> that I propose don't give to people abstaining from a particular 
> pairwise comparison the power to influence that pairwise comparison. Now 
> that that issue is settled, on to another topic:
> 
> As I said above:
> 
> A set of voters consisting of more than half of the voters is a uniquely 
> powerful set of voters--a set of voters for whom certain guarantees can 
> be made.
> 
> That's why there are a number of criteria that refer to such a set of 
> voters. Those include my four majority defensive strategy criteria, and 
> other criteria too, including the Majority Favorite Criterion and the 
> Mutual Majority Criterion.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>