[EM] Re: Malfunctioning criteria

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

>I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match the intent of MC, and so 
>that it wouldn't have the ridiculous malfunction that FHC has.
...
>Your FHC loses meaningfulness when it says that Plurality has an advantage 
>over Approval when, in regards to
>what makes Pluralitly pass FHC, Plurality has no meaningful advantage over 
>Approval.. Your FHC malfunctions seriously in that way.


You say;

	In other words, you reject my more straightforward definition of MC...

I reply:

No, FHC isn't more straightforward than PMC. It's just different. If you 
like criteria to be similar to eachother, PMC is similar to the majorilty 
defensive strategy criteria, though it is different from CC & MMC.

You continue:

...because approval fails it while plurality passes it.
	I think that it's intellectually dishonest to bend and stretch basic
criteria definitions so that your favorite methods pass them, unless you
are very clear that this is what you are doing.

I reply:

I am and have been very clear that that was what I was doing. You seem to 
believe that my argument for PMC over FHC is that I want a criterioin that 
treats Approval better, because I like Approval. But is that what I said? 
Here's what I said, and what I say now: What makes IRV pass FHC, when 
Approval doesn't pass it, is something that anyone would agree is a 
disadvantage of Plurality, not a disadvantage. When a criterion calls a 
disadvantage an advantage, I call that a malfunction. It would be a 
malfunction whether I liked Approval or not. Would I call it a malfunction 
if I didn't like Approval? What evidence is there about that question? 
Approval would pass CC if CC were defined votes-only, as you yourself said. 
Though I like Approval and CR, and though they both fail CC, MMC, SFC, GSFC, 
and SDSC, I don't try to re-define those criteria so that Approval and CR 
will pass them.

You can say that I'm a liar, and that my actual motive is to try to 
misrepresent the criteria so that I can reject a criterion that Approval 
fails, and advocate a criterion that Approval passes. But since you don't 
have ESP, you need to concentrate instead on trying to deny that FHC is 
malfunctioning.

You continue:


	You were fairly clear about this in the beginning, but perhaps you bought
into your own trick

I reply:

If saying that FHC is malfunctioning, for the reasons that I stated, when it 
says that Plurality passes and Approval fails, when Plurality passes due to 
something that we all know is a disadvantage of Plurality with respect to 
Approval, is a trick, and if you want others to believe that it's a trick, 
the first thing you need to do is to tell convincingly why you think that it 
isn't a malfunction when FHC says that. If you could establsh that, then you 
could claim that I'm trying to misrepresent the situation. But you haven't 
done that. Instead you repeat previous answered statements and try to change 
the subject to the motives of the person you disagree with. That's a common 
tactic of people who are arguing an indefensible claim.

You continue:

, as you now seem to treat your "PMC" as if it were
perfectly natural MC definition, and absurdly refer to my more
straightforward MC definition as the "freedom haters criterion".

I reply:

FHC gives a passing grade to Plurality for no reason other than the fact 
that Plurality doesn't let us help our favorite when we help a compromise. 
Plurality takes away that freedom that Approval allows. That's the 
difference between them. And that denial of voter-freedom is what makes 
Pluralityl pass FHC when Approval fails it.

And no, FHC is not more straightforward than PMC.

I'd said:

>I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match the intent of MC,

You ask:

	How do you determine the intent of MC?

I reply:

We don't disagree on the intent of MC. The way to judge the intent of a 
criterion is by noting what people generally say abouit what passes it and 
what doesn't. Borda is the method usually considered the only proposed 
method that fails MC.

You wrote a special purpose, ad-hoc  MC that Approval fails. But it has not 
been generally agreed that Approval fails MC. Certainly Approval doesn't 
fail votes-only MC, the MC usually quoted.

CR fails votes-only MC, but we don't hear anything about that. We don't hear 
it affirmed as what people expect from MC.

If people have been using votes-only MC, and not saying that Approval should 
fail MC, then it can't be said that the intent of MC is for Approval to fail 
MC. If we haven't heard anything affirming that CR is a 
majority-criterion-failing method, then you can't say that it's the intent 
of MC that CR fails it.

PMC is failed by the notoriously, uniquely antimajoritarian Borda. Borda is 
the method known as the method that fails MC. As I said, check _Selected 
Topics in Voting Systems_, by Shiffrin, published by Springer-Verlag.

As I said, votes-ony MC's distinction between Approval and CR isn't as wrong 
as FHC's distinction between Pliurality and Approval, because the freedom 
that CR adds to Approval isn't strategically valuable. But it's 
strategically harmless because no one is forced to use it, and because the 
person who wants the best for himself/herself will use CR as Approval. So CR 
fails MC, when Approval passes, merely because someone who chooses to lose 
advantage can do so. So, to a lesser degree, votes-only MC is malfunctioning 
when it says that CR fails when Approval passes, because of CR's option to 
forfeit strategic voting.

For the reasons stated above, it doesn't make any sense when FHC says that 
Plurality passes and Approval doesn't.


>Notice that MC is nothing more than a special case of MMC, where set S
>contains only one member.
Mike:
>No. It isn't. Your version, FHC, is. My version, PMC, is not.

	Oh. I thought that there was an EM list consensus on MC being the case of
MMC where the majority set has one member. Apparently I was wrong.

I reply:

That's correct, you were wrong. No one else on EM has defined MC in that 
way.

MC and MMC differ in that what corresponds to MMC's majority set, in MC, has 
only one member, but that isn't enough to say that MC is a case of MMC, 
because there are other differences in how they've been defined. MC has 
always been stated as a votes-only criterion. MMC is defined as a preference 
criterion. Both preference definitions of MC are new. One of them 
ridiculously malfunctions.

You continue:

If you
don't agree that MC and MMC are related in this way, then that's where we
differ.

I reply:

MC and MMC are related in this way: MC's "majority set" consists of only one 
candidate, while MMC's majority set can have any number of candidates. But 
that isn't the only difference between those criteria, as they've been 
understood on EM. And if you disagree with that sentence, then yes, that's 
where we differ. In that case, since we've found out where we differ, 
there's no need for further discussion about this, unless you have evidence 
that FHC has been the understood MC definition on EM or in jounals, etc.

You continue:

	Resolved: I think that your universally applicable MC definition is
bizarre and intellectually dishonest.

I reply:

That's a funny thing to say, coming from someone who made up FHC as a 
made-to-order criterion when asked if there's something that Approval fails 
and Plurality passes.

Sure, you could say that PMC is made-to-order too. But there's a difference: 
I have justified my statement that FHC is malfunctioning. You have done 
nothting other than to change the subject to my motives. I've said from the 
start that I justify PMC, over FHC, because FHC is saying something that 
makes no sense.

And, as for bizarre, yes there is one bizarre thing about this: FHC's 
bizarre conclusion that Plurality passes where Approval fails, because of 
something that is universally understood to be a disadvantage of Plurality 
with respect to Approval. That's what's bizarre. That and the fact that such 
a sloppy and careless dunce would speak so loudly and assertively here.

You continue:

You think that my universally
applicable MC criterion...

I reply:

...universally applicable only if you ignore its ridiculous malflunction in 
the comparison of Approval and Plurality.

You continue:

[...]

Probably there is no need to continue this discussion much longer.

I reply:

Yes! You've got it! At least you got that right.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement