[EM] Should we say a criterion implicitly doesnt apply to a method?
6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Mon May 9 23:12:00 PDT 2005
When Condorcet proposed his voting method, he stipulated ranked ballots.
Furthermore, all variations of Condorcet voting since then have always
been based on ranked ballots. The Condorcet criterion therefore simply
requires that the election method allow each voter to individually rank
the candidates. Whether explicitly stated or implied, part of the
criterion is that the method be ordinal. If a particular method is not
ordinal, it fails the Condorcet criterion by definition. It's a no-brainer.
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> There could be some disagreement over whether a certain kind of
> criterion applies to Plurality. Such as this defective Condorcet
> Criterion definition, which I call a "ham-sandwich" criterion because
> earlier I said that a ham sandwich would pass it if it's application
> weren't limited to voting systems.
> For all candidates Y, if more voters rank X over Y than rank Y over X,
> then X should win.
> [end of Ham-Sandwich CC definition]
> My position yesterday was that Plurality passes that criterion,
> meaninglessly. I said that because it seemed unwarranted to customize
> the meaning of passing a criterion just to protect that defective
> criterion from giving a meaningless answer. I felt that to do so would
> be to give unwarranted recognition to ham-sandwich criteria.
> Of course it could be argued that avoiding a meaningless answer is
> desirable, and that since ham-sandwich criteria are to be found written
> in many places, it's worth having definitions that avoid having to say
> that Plurality (meaninglessly) passes them.
> So how about this approach?:
> This first statement goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway:
> A criterion explicitly doesn't apply to a method or class of methods if
> that criterion's definition explicitly says that the cariterion doesn't
> apply to that method or class of methods.
> A criterion implicitly doesn't apply to a method if it can be shown
> that no example with that method can comply with that criterion's
> premise, and if that criterion's definition doesn't explicitly say that
> the criterion doesn't apply to that method or to some class of methods
> to which that method belongs.
> If a criterion explicitly or implicitly doesn't apply to a method, then
> that method neither passes nor fails that criterion.
> [end of suggested definitions about criteria explicitly and implicitly
> not applyng to methods]
> Mike Ossipoff
> Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
More information about the Election-Methods