[EM] Rob: Renaming SFC

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Rob--

You wrote:

I'm glad you're open to the idea of renaming SFC (a.k.a "strategy free
criterion").  However, I've got some problem with all three of the
above:

1.  They all have "Condorcet's criterion" in the name, even though
Condorcet never proposed anything like SFC, did he?

I reply:

Sure he did. Condorcet's Criterion is like SFC. After all, I'm not 
suggesting to call SFC "Condorcet's Criteroin". I'm suggesting to call it 
"Strong Condorcet Criterion". That indicates a modification of
Condorcet's Criterion that makes a stronger guarantee. So there's nothing 
wrong with having "Condorcet's Criterioni" as part of the name even though 
Condorcet didn't specifically propose SFC.

To show similarity between SFC and CC, they both guarantee to some set of 
voters that no one worse than the CW will win. With SFC the set is some 
majority. With CC the set is all the voters.

They both stipulate sincere voting by certain voters. CC stipulates sincere 
voting by everyone. SFC stipulates sincere voting by the majority to whom it 
makes the guarantee. But SFC only stipulates unfalsified voting by the other 
voters.

SFC's guarantee is stronger because it's more widely applicable and more 
plausible. SFC stipulates that you and your majorilty vote sincerely, but it 
doesn't stipulate that your opponents vote sincerely too. Which assumption 
is more plausible and useful?

Lazy or principled truncation is much more likely and plausible than 
falsification of preferences. Especially on a scale sufficient to change the 
election result. So failure to meet CC's premise conditions is more likely 
than failure to meet SFC's premise conditions.

SFC is able to make that stronger guarantee because it makes it to a 
majority, rather than to everyone.

You continued:

2.  None of them have "majority" in the name, which is a defining
characteristic of the method.

I reply:

Yes, but that just tells whom the guarantee is made to. The important way 
that SFC differs from CC is not in the matter of whom the guarantee is made 
to. It's the fact that the guarantee is stronger. It's the fact that SFC is 
about more plausible opponents. It's about the fact that SFC is more 
applicable.

You continued:

3.  The "plausible opponent" and "more applicable" part would need
explaining and defending, since those concepts are pretty far removed
from the definition of the method.

I reply:

Yes, they are far removed from the definition, and so they do need 
explaining. But they tell the important difference between SFC and CC.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963