[EM] SFC

[Michael Ossipoff]

--WDS: In that case, as I said, Ossipoff's SFC definition reduces to
the requirement that the mehtod be a Condorcet method:

>"SFC: If no one falsifies a preference, and there's a CW, and a majority of 
>all the voters
>prefer the CW to candidate Y, and vote sincerely, then Y shouldn't win."

I must say, SFC is then rather silly.
It says "if no one falsifies a preference" redundantly since it also says
"a majority of all the voters prefer the CW to candidate Y"
(of course they do, that followed  from defn of CW and fact nobody falsified 
a preference)

I reply now:

Wrong. Maybe there’s a lot of indifference, in which case there needn’t be a 
majority preferring the CW to Y, even though no one falsifies a preference.

Warren continues:

and redundanty it also says "and vote sincerely" (of course they do, since
nobody falsified a preference)


I reply now:

I believe that my definition of sincere voting is at the website where 
Warren read the definition of SFC. As I define sincere voting, for the 
purpose of my criteria, voting sincerely requires more than not falsifying a 
preference. I have to admit that I’m getting tired of holding Warren’s hand 
and reading my definitions to him.

Let me take a shot at stating my sincerity definition here, without looking 
it up:

A voter votes sincerely if s/he doesn’t falsify a preference, and doesn’t 
fail to vote a sincere preference that the balloting system in use would 
have allowed in addition to the preferences that s/he actually did vote.

[end of sincere voting definition, if I remember correctly]

The website also has definitions of voting X over Y, voting a preference, 
and falsifying a preference. They’re all consistent with what one would 
expect.

SFC is more demanding than the Condorcet Criterion. The wv Condorcet methods 
are the only, or nearly the only, methods that meet SFC. Every 
pair-wise-count method meets the Condorcet Criterion.

Mike Ossipoff


Warren continues:


It seemed to me Ossipoff probably did not intend to keep repeating himself
for no reason, so I dismissed the preface.  However, if one accepts it, then
as I said, Ossipoff's SFC definition reduces to
the requirement that the method be a Condorcet method.
One then has to ask:

1. why is he calling it SFC instead of the Condorcet criterion like 
everybody else since 1780?
2. why is he saying the "good" Condorcet methods obey it (all do)?
3. why is he acting as though this proves something, when in fact it is a 
tautology?

--Yours in mystification,
Warren D Smith