[EM] Re: Chris--Your Range-Voting comments

[Kevin Venzke]

Mike,

 --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit : 
> [Chris] continued:
> 
> Obviously if the method doesn't collect enough information to infer the
> voters' favourites, then it can't  meet MF.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> No, if a method didn't allow us to indicate a favorite, then it would pass, 
> because you couldn't write a failure example.

This is why I think criteria need to assume that voters offer rankings.
Otherwise you get into this nonsense of saying that a method satisfies
a criterion because it couldn't possibly satisfy it.

This makes it pretty easy to evaluate Approval, if you take it as a
ranked method with a cutoff, where only the cutoff is regarded. This
makes it obvious that Approval fails Majority Favorite and, say,
Condorcet. And it's still obvious that it satisfies WDSC.

Clone Independence is the tricky one. It depends on whether the clone
set members end up on the same side of the cutoff.

Also, Approval only satisfies Plurality if we assume that voters don't
place all candidates under the cutoff.

Later-no-harm seems to be ambiguous, too. Does "adding another 
preference" involve placing it above the cutoff? If not, Approval
satisfies it, although in a meaningless way.

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/