[EM] Chris: various topics

Chris Benham chrisbenham at bigpond.com
Fri May 27 03:12:13 PDT 2005

I reply to me writing that Mono-add-Plump and  Mono-append should always 
be on our "shopping list" because they are so "cheap", you wrote:

>The thing is, nobody has convinced me that there is any particular reason
>to care about mono-add-plump or mono-append. Maybe I should care about
>them, but I [don't] know why I should, at least not as yet. So, even if they're
>bargain-basement cheap, I don't see why I should buy them. 	
I  am flabbergasted at your claim that you need someone to *convince*  
you  to "care about" those criteria.  Are there any criteria that that 
you have come to care about without
anyone needing to convince you? (If so, which ones?)
(Just to be clear, in case anyone missed the definitions, Mono-add-Plump 
means that if  x wins and afterwards we add some ballots that 
bullet-vote for x, then x must still win;
and Mono-append says that if x wins and afterwards we alter some 
truncated ballots that didn't rank x to now rank x just below the 
previously lowest-ranked candidate, then
x must still win.)
Either you are not serious and are  to use a UK slang expression "taking 
the piss", or  you have a highly defective 
I  won't get sucked into trying to  "convince" you of their value; 
except to say that they are not incompatible with any criteria that you 
(or anyone else at EM) say that you *do*
care about, so proposing a method that fails one or other of those 
criteria is an easily avoidable marketing liability  (because lots of 
people do/will think that failing those criteria
is silly and unacceptable.)

On the subject of  my proposed  "Weak Burial Resistance" criterion:

>"If x is the CW (and wins), and on more than 1/3 of the ballots ranked
>>above y and z; and afterwards on some of the ballots that rank y above x
>>and x not below z, z's ranking relative to x is raised while keeping y
>>ranked above them both, then if there is a new winner it cannot be y." 
>	To me, this seems too specific to be called something as general as "weak
>burial resistance". Plus, the wording is quite confusing.
Well its about nothing else except Burial resistance, and its not 
"strong" Burial resistance which suggests complete invulnerability to 
Burial.  As far as I know, the only two significant measures of  Burial 
resistance available are complete invulnerability (such as with IV and 
PP) and this one suggested  by my criterion. (Maybe instead of "weak" 
you would prefer
the word "partial"?).
The criterion is in plain unambiguous English. Which part do you find 
confusing?  This suggestion of yours:

>"If C is the CW and is ranked above X and Y on
>more than 1/3 of the ballots, the X>C faction cannot switch the winner
>from C to X by burying C under Y." 
means exactly the same thing, but with mine noone needs to know what 
"burying" means. (But yes, apart from that, yours does look a bit more 
succinct and elegant).

Chris  Benham

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list