[EM] Markus, 2 March, ´05, 1130 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

I said that criteria should be defined on the
_cast_ preferences and not on the _sincere_
preferences.

I didn't say that criteria shouldn't
be defined on preferences at all.

I reply:

A vote isn´t a preference. A vote might be based on a preference, though 
often it is not. If a vote is a cast preference, and someone who prefers 
Nader to Kerry votes Kerry over Nader, is that a  preference, even though 
it´s opposite to the voter´s preference? You say it is a cast preference but 
not a sincere preference? There´s no such thing as an insincere preference. 
An insincere statement about preference is understood by all to mean a 
statement that is contrary to one´s preference.

When you vote in accord with your preference, that preference could then be 
called a voted preference. Since you could be said to have "cast" that 
preference when you voted, you could call that preference a "cast 
preference". But the vote isn´t the cast preference; the vote is what was 
done that was based on the preference. The preference itself could be called 
a voted preference, or maybe even a cast preference, because you cast a vote 
that´s in accord with that preference.

But whether or not you agree with that usual meaning for preference, I´m 
telling you now, that when I say "preference", I don´t refer to a vote.

If you want to call a vote a cast preference, then I´ll translate cast 
preference to vote when you say it. No problem. And you need to understand 
that when I say preference, I don´t mean vote.

We can use different language if you´re willing to accept that your own 
usage isn´t followed by everyone else.

You wrote (27 Feb 2005):
>You still haven't said why you think that my
>criteria are unclear.

I would say that WDSC, SDSC, and FBC are rather
_undefined_ than _unclear_.

I reply:

If they´re undefined, then post an example of a situation in which their 
result is undeterminable.

Because, if their result is always determinable, if any method, in any 
situation, can be shown to pass or shown to fail, then that´s a well-defined 
criterion.

Anyway, when making the claim that a critrerion is undefined, the burden is 
on you to tell specifically why you think that it´s undefined. You haven´t 
done that.

I´d said:

You wrote (27 Feb 2005):
>For instance, I demonstrated why Approval passes
>WDSC, and why margins Condorcet fails WDSC. When
>compliances and noncompliances can be clearly and
>undeniably demonstrated, then that's the only kind
>of clarity that a criterion really needs. Can you
>name a plausible situation in which it would be
>difficult to say whether or not a method meets
>one of my criteria.

Then please demonstrate whether my method (aka
Schwartz sequential dropping, cloneproof Schwartz
sequential dropping, beatpath method, beatpath
winner, Schulze method) satisfies FBC.

I reply:

Gladly. I´ll answer that question when I get to it. As I said, somone sent 
to me an example in which Condorcet failed FBC. I´ll post such an example, 
when I get to it. Or if, in every example that I check, BeatpathWinner can 
be shown to not fail, I´ll report that too.

Note that that isn´t a refusal to answer the question.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/