[EM] Russ, 2 March, 1952 GMT

[Russ Paielli]

Folks, in case you didn't read Mike's latest wisdom, please don't miss 
it. Mike now claims that the Condorcet criterion is a Mike-style 
preference-based criterion. No, I am not making this up:

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> 
> I´d said:
> 
>    No, the Condorcet's Criterion that was at the website at the 
> technical evaluation page was a Mike style criterioni entirely. It 
> referred to the CW (which you called the IDW, defined as I define the 
> CW), and it stipulated sincere voting. Both the CW and sincere voting 
> are defined by me in terms of preference, and were defined at your 
> website in terms of preference.
> 
> 
> Russ replied:
> 
> If you stipulate "sincere" voting, then you are eliminating the voting
> strategy and stipulating that the actual votes cast are identical to the
> "sincere" or true preferences.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Wrong. You need to read my definition of sincere voting before you try 
> to quote it.
> 
> Since you don´t, or shouldn´t, have it at your website now, I´ll write 
> it for you here:
> 
> A voter votes sincerely if s/he doesn´t falsify a preference, or fail to 
> vote a preference of his/hers which the balloting system in use would 
> have allowed him/her to vote in addition to the preferences that s/he 
> actually does vote.
> 
> [end of sincere voting definition]
> 
> The wording isn´t as smooth as one might like, but it´s unambiguous.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> In that case, a Mike-style criterion is
> equivalent to a standard tally-rules-based criterion.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> ...except that no-preference ("tally-based) criteria don´t make 
> reference to preference, and my sincere voting defintion refers to 
> preferences, and so any criterion that stipulates sincere voting refers 
> to preference and is therefore a Mike-style citerion.
> 
> Further, the my Condorcet´s Criterion defintiion additionally mentions 
> te CW. The CW is defined in terms of preference. So my Condorcet 
> Criterion, the one that you had at your website while you were permitted 
> to, is entirely a Mike-style criterion.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> You can take any standard criterion, play this trick, and call it a
> Mike-style criterion.
> 
> ...by adding to it a stipulation of sincere voting and mentioning the 
> CW? You catch on fast :-)
> Then it would indeed be Mike-style criterion.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> You will only be obfuscating the issue and adding
> nothing of any value, however.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> You´re all befuddled and confused about what you mean by a Mike-style 
> criterion.
> 
> That's exactly what we did with the old
> Condorcet criterion on our former website
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Congratulations, that´s correct. We posted a Mike-style criterion when 
> we posted Condorcet´s Criterion.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> , and looking back at it, I
> realize it was an embarrassment.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> You suddenly realized that my criteria weren´t any good a few days after 
> I told you that you no longer had permission to have them at your 
> website :-)
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> The Condorcet criterion can and should
> be defined in terms of actual votes only.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Yoiu´re saying that it _can_ only be defined that way? Well, if 
> Condorcet himself said it that way, then one could argue that it 
> wouldn´t be Condorcet´s Criterion any other way. But then you have the 
> choice of saying that Plurality passes, or specifically saying that only 
> rank methods pass, or specifically saying that Plurality fails, or 
> saying that the method only applies to rank methods. Then you have a 
> rules criterion, a criterion that makes requirements or premise 
> stipulations that mention a method´s rules. I prefer Mike-style criteria 
> to rules citeria. Mike-style criteria are about results only, not rules.
> 
> Anyway, as I was saying, if Condorcet stated a rules criterion, then you 
> could say that, strictly speaking, CC must be a rules criterion. But I 
> call my version Condorcet´s Criterion because it´s the Condorcet´s 
> Criterion version that is not a rules criterion, and which acts as one 
> would expect CC to act, anc whilch doesn´t have the problems that CC, 
> and some other criteria, would have if they don´t mention preference.
> 
> Now, as for "should", if all you´re saying is that CC _should_ be 
> defined without mentioning preference, then of course you´re merely 
> expressing a subjecive preference of yours, and of course you have a 
> right to your (newly-acquired) opinion.
> 
> I´d said:
> 
> No, that Condoret's Criterion was thoroughly a Mike style criterion, for 
> the reasons stated above.
> 
> Russ said:
> 
> Then "that" Condoret's Criterion wasn't the standard Condorcet
> criterion.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Why don´t you advocate that we keep the current "standard" voting 
> system, Plurality?
> 
> I don´t know if there´s just one standard CC definition. It seems to me 
> that I´ve noticed a few non-preference versions that did silly things, 
> such as say that Plurality passes CC, or make rules stipulations in 
> their premise.
> 
> Which of those silly versions do you prefer?
> 
> But no, my definition is not the former standard definition, if there is 
> a standard definition.
> 
> But my non-rules criterion Mutual Majority has gotten quite a bit of use.
> 
> Russ continued:
> 
> I could just as well define my own version of monotonicity
> too, but what would it accomplish other than making me look like a fool?
> 
> I reply:
> 
> I don´t doubt for a minute that that´s exactly what it would do. But, on 
> the other hand, that has never stopped you.
> 
> But if the traditional Condorcet Criterion has a fault, or if the 
> various "standard" versions all have their various faults, then 
> hopefully you´ll forgive me if I propose a different one. I use CC very 
> little. It was you who wanted to have my CC version at your website. I 
> wanted to mention at the website that it isn´t the standard version, and 
> you opposed mentioning that.
> 
> My CC is so similar to the standard one(s) that it´s well justified to 
> call it CC.