[EM] Definition of "sincere approval voting" (was FBC comparison: WV, margins, MMPO, DMC)
chrisbenham at bigpond.com
Mon Sep 19 10:08:19 PDT 2005
>--- Chris Benham <chrisbenham at bigpond.com> a écrit :
>>> This is my proposed clear definition:
>>> "An 'approval vote' is one that makes some approval distinction among
>>> the candidates. It is sincere if
>>> (1)the voter sincerely prefers all the approved candidates (or single
>>> candidate) to all the not approved candidates (or single candidate), and
>>> (2) it is how the voter would vote without any knowledge or guess as to
>>> how other voters might vote."
>I have trouble with (2). We could assume that "how the voter would vote"
>means optimal, above-mean approval strategy. But obviously that is a
>problem for a definition of "sincerity." It would also make approval
I don't have a big problem with plain Approval satisfying NZIS. Of
course Approval is promoted as a
method that invites voters to strategize.
>Otherwise we could choose to not define "how the voter would vote." But
>in that case nothing prevents a strategically unwise vote from being
>sincere, so that I don't see how DMC could satisfy NZIS.
If , by some absolute standard in the voter's mind, the voter sincerely
"approves" at least one but not all of the candidates
then "sincere approval" is clearcut. I suppose if this isn't the case
then as you say if we leave undefined "how the voter
would vote" there is still 0-info. approval strategy (so plain Approval
doesn't really meet NZIS).
>You would have
>to claim that DMC has no zero-info approval strategy.
It seems clear that DMC has no zero-info. *ranking* strategy. (Is that
what you meant?) But unless we define "sincere approval"
as "optimal zero-information approval ('strategy')", then DMC
perhaps doesn't fully meet NZIS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods