[EM] Meaning of preference, four approaches

[Russ Paielli]

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:

> Markus doesn´t like the mention of preference in a criterion, and 
> implies that it´s somehow necessarily imprecise. I don´t agree. Here are 
> a few approaches to the meaning of preference:

I can't read Markus's mind, but I suspect that his objection is not so 
much to the definition of "prefer" but rather to the fact that it refers 
to a state of mind of the voters separate from the *actual* votes cast. 
As I wrote earlier today, "normal" criteria (i.e., that do not originate 
from Mike) make no reference whatsoever to voter preferences except in 
terms of the actual votes cast. In other words, "normal" criteria apply 
to the tally rules only and not the voting strategy. They may have 
*implications* for voting strategy, of course, but they do not address 
it directly.

Having said that, I think I agree with Mike on this one. I think it is 
reasonable to model true voter preferences as a "sincere" rank list for 
each voter. I also think it is reasonable to model the true preferences 
of each voter as a cardinal rating for each candidate, though that would 
be a more specific model. Either case is reasonable so long as the model 
is clearly stated. Unless I am missing something here, the definition of 
a preference is then trivial: if the voter ranks or rates one candidate 
over the other, the voter "prefers" the higher ranked or rated candidate.

Unlike others here, therefore, I think Mike-style criteria can be, and 
usually are, well defined. I just think that some people are confused 
because, unlike other criteria, they directly address both voting 
strategy *and* tally rules. The question remains, of course, of how 
*useful* Mike-style criteria are even if they *are* well defined. On 
that matter I differ with Mike.