[EM] James' mutually-contradictory critrerion definitions
jarmyta at antioch-college.edu
Sat May 7 20:01:32 PDT 2005
> For example, here is what I consider to be a standard MC definition, and
>a standard MMC definition, for application to ranked ballot methods:
> Below are a few more definitions of the two criteria that I found via a
>quick google search. I believe that they largely support my
>They contradict eachother. They support my longstanding statement that
>criteria are usually defined votes-only, or with reference to preference,
>but with no stipulation about votes being constrained by preference.
You missed when I said "for application to ranked ballot methods". For
ranked methods, there is no difference between votes-only MC or MMC and
preference versions of the same criteria.
By posting these quotes, I'm establishing that in the ranked ballot case
(or votes only, if you like), they only differ in that MMC deals with a
majority set rather than a majority candidate.
Thus, I intend to show that they should have the same relationship when
applied to non-ranked methods (or as preference criteria, if you like).
So, your reply goes into great detail about the difference between
preference criteria and votes-only criteria, but that has nothing to do
with what I was trying to establish. I'm not at all interested in the
difference between preference criteria and votes-only criteria; rather,
I'm interested in the difference between MC and MMC, whether states as
votes-only criteria or preference criteria.
>"Majority criterion: If a majority of voters strictly prefers a given
>candidate to every other candidate and votes sincerely, then that
>candidate should win."
>Who posted that in the wikipedia? James? In any case, that's James' FHC,
>which, as I said, ridiculously malfunctions in its comparison of
I don't know who posted that to Wikipedia. I'm quite certain that it
wasn't me. Here is a more complete quote:
>The majority criterion is a voting system criterion, used to objectively
>compare voting systems. The criterion states that if a majority of voters
>strictly prefers a given candidate to every other candidate and votes
>sincerely, then that candidate should win.
>Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, plurality voting, instant runoff
>voting, and Ranked Pairs comply with the majority criterion, while
>Approval voting and the Borda count do not.
You're right when I say that it is nearly identical to my definition of
the majority criterion, which supports my assertion that there is a
precedent for that definition. However, I'm not sure that authorship of
the wikipedia can be established unless someone who happens to read this
post acknowledges that they wrote it. I know that it's not mine because I
never write stuff like "The majority criterion is a voting system
criterion, used to objectively compare voting systems."
More information about the Election-Methods