[EM] RE : Chris: Approval

[Chris Benham]

Kevin Venzke wrote:

>>Aside from that, why is it ok to speak of intent, but not preference?
>>    
>>
>
>Intent is post-strategy. Here's an example of the process:
>
>1. Say my "sincere preferences" are A>B>C>D>E.
>2. Then I apply whatever reasoning and decide that I will be voting D>A>B
>and truncate the rest. Then that D>A>B is my "intended vote."
>3. At this point I the voter do not make any more decisions. Suppose the
>ballot format is such that I can only vote for two candidates equally
>and nobody else. Then my "cast ballot" is either D=A or D=B, according
>to arbitrary resolution.
>

Kevin,

Is this exactly what you meant to write? The way it is written, I don't 
see how "D=B" is a possible
choice of cast ballot for the voter whose intended ranking is D>A>B. If 
D=B is possible, why not
A=B?

I would rather say (in your point 3) that if the method is approval the 
voter with an "intended ranking"
of  D>A>B  (in this field of more than 3 candidates) makes an arbitrary 
choice  between D or DA or
DAB for his 'cast ballot'.

Chris Benham


>Mike,
>
>--- Michael Ossipoff <mikeo2106 at msn.com> a écrit :
>  
>
>>>I share the Venke (similar to Woodall's) approach that the criteria
>>>should assume that the voters intend to submit a ranked ballot (maybe 
>>>truncated, maybe with some equal-ranking) and that voters
>>>fill out their actual (maybe restricted) ballots in a way that is 
>>>consistent with their intended ballots, and when ballot restrictions 
>>>prevent
>>>voters from fully voting their intended ranked ballots the criteria are 
>>>based on the intended ballots.
>>>      
>>>
>>I've already answered about that. It's based on a privileged balloting 
>>system. My criteria make no mention of any balloting system.
>>    
>>
>
>But you also can't demonstrate that they are unambiguous for any possible
>election method.
>
>  
>
>>Though you go to great lengths to avoid mentioning preferences, you don't
>>mind saying that the voter intends to vote a ranking, when s/he votes in 
>>Plurality. I've talked to voters, and many of them are adamantly opposed
>>to 
>>any voting system other than Plurality. They don't intend to vote a
>>ranking 
>>when they vote Plurality.
>>    
>>
>
>Doesn't matter. That's not the point of speaking of "intent."
>
>  
>
>>Could you demonstrate why Approval and 0-10 CR fail Condorcet's
>>Criterion, 
>>in your system?
>>    
>>
>
>Personally I don't have anything to add on these topics. I gave an
>example of dealing with CR, and acknowledged that Approval is a weak
>point.
>
>  
>
>>Aside from that, why is it ok to speak of intent, but not preference?
>>    
>>
>
>Intent is post-strategy. Here's an example of the process:
>
>1. Say my "sincere preferences" are A>B>C>D>E.
>2. Then I apply whatever reasoning and decide that I will be voting D>A>B
>and truncate the rest. Then that D>A>B is my "intended vote."
>3. At this point I the voter do not make any more decisions. Suppose the
>ballot format is such that I can only vote for two candidates equally
>and nobody else. Then my "cast ballot" is either D=A or D=B, according
>to arbitrary resolution.
>
>So an advantage of using intent over preference is that the voter only
>has input at one stage. That's exactly as if you were only considering
>cast ballots, except that you don't have to worry that perhaps the voter
>was not allowed by the ballot to cast his preferred vote.
>
>Preference and intent really take the same approach to not having to
>worry about ballot restrictions, in that they both try to regard voter
>input before it hits the paper.
>
>Kevin Venzke
>
>
>	
>
>	
>		
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20070320/e7dbb759/attachment-0003.htm>