[EM] Re: Why it doesn't matter if "prefer" means anything

[Paul Kislanko]

"But, for one thing, my 
sincerity definition is only for use with my criteria, not for evaluation of

voters and their motivations. For another thing, that voter shouldn't 
entirely blame my definition. Surely she would have to admit that she 
contributed at least partly to the definition-mismatch by having 
intransitive preferences."

If your definition is not universally applicable, don't expect laymen to
accept it. And no, no voter should have to explain anything to you about the
failure of your definitions. If your method can't accomodate us voters'
intransivities, it is not one we need to talk about or be bothered with.

Let's just leave it at your criteria isn't applicable to practical voting
methods.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:19 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Re: Why it doesn't matter if "prefer" means anything
> 
> 
> Jobst--
> 
> Oh shit.
> 
> Why can't you send me an erroneous criticism of my criteria, 
> like everyone 
> else? :-)
> 
> I've gotten so used to erroneous criticisms, that I was sure 
> that yours must 
> be one, but of course it wasn't.
> 
> Maybe the best solution is to just say that my criteria only apply if 
> preferences are transitive.
> 
> That's my best immediate answer.
> 
> You might suggest changing my definition of sincere voting, 
> but it's what 
> works with my criteria.
> 
> Well, it isn't really a problem though. A valid criticism, but not a 
> problem, and not a serious fault of my criteria or sincerity 
> definition:
> 
> Say you propose a method, and, for that method and one of my 
> criteria, I 
> write a failure example with transitive preferences. Your 
> method fails the 
> criterion, because it was possible to contrive an example in 
> which it fails. 
> The fact that my criteria that stipulate sincere voting don't 
> applly to 
> examples with intransitive preferences doesn't mean that I 
> can't supply a 
> failure example for your method.
> 
> If you write an example with intransitive preferences, then 
> if a criterion 
> of mine stipulates sincerity, that just means that your 
> example isn't one 
> that tests the method by my criterion.
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Yes, as you said, that voter with intransitive preferences 
> has no way of 
> voting sincerely, as I define voting sincerely. But, for one 
> thing, my 
> sincerity definition is only for use with my criteria, not 
> for evaluation of 
> voters and their motivations. For another thing, that voter shouldn't 
> entirely blame my definition. Surely she would have to admit that she 
> contributed at least partly to the definition-mismatch by having 
> intransitive preferences.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>