[EM] RE : Chris: Approval
mikeo2106 at msn.com
Wed Mar 21 02:57:01 PDT 2007
My criteria describe some ways that a method can limit strategy need.
The effects of your criteria aren't really being considered.
By whom are the effects of my criteria not being considered? Taken
literally, your statement means that their effects are not being considered
by anyone, including me. Is that what you meant? If so, can you justify your
Ive posted much about the effects of my criteria, in relation to voters
freedom from strategy-need.
You and I use almost the same criteria, just under different schemes.
Yes, and my criteria are defined in terms of preference, sincere voting,
falsified voting, etc. Theyre defined in terms of real-world
considerations. Though Ive said that it doesnt matter what prefer means,
and though Ive posted a precise abstract definition of it, its also
obvious what its real-world interpretation is, and its name is consistent
with that interpretation.
Hearing my criteria, someone knows whats being said in terms of real-world
concerns, terms, and considerations.
The same cannot be said for your fictitious rankings system.
Can I give your system an abbreviation, since I refer to it often in this
Fictitiously Assumed Ranking Criteria System (FARCS)
Ok now let me clarify that Im only calling it _your_ system, or Chriss
system for convenience. . Ive been told that FARCS is the standard academic
approach to criteria involving preference, as their way of trying to avoid
preference.. Oh, say no more, where do I sign up?
Thats why you and Chris like it.
And what do I always say about most voting system academics? But I
understand that theres a strong instinctive need to adopt, believe in, and
follow authority.. Im not criticizing that instinctive need.
And Im not just referring to FARCS and voting system academic authorities
when I say that, throughout much of human history, uncritical following of
authority must have been survival-adaptive: Our leader Throg say all spear
should have point!
If authority-worship hadnt been adaptive for our ancestors, then it
wouldnt be so well-expressed in current specimens. But what was importantly
helpful in our million-year past, including our taste for sugar, animal fat
(for which we have zero requirement), too much meat, and too many
calories--and our natural worship of authority--may not be so helpful in
FARCS is an elaborately, unnecessarily roundabout approach, just to avoid
saying the P word. FARCS is ridiculous. And it just replaces preference
with a silly story about something with vague meaning and without an obvious
So Im not criticizing something of Kevin or Chris. Im criticizing an
But, I might sometimes still call it your criteria or your system,
though its understood that I dont mean that it is that.
Do you tell your imaginary rankings story with each criterion-definition (if
so I havent noticed that being done), or do you just expect it to be
understood that criteria mean something different from what they say?
What reason is there to believe that they [my criteria] are or might be
ambiguous for some > method(s)?
I bet you could easily contrive a method where your definition of "vote A
over B" is not currently adequate.
I reply now:
and would your method be proposable? Its enough that my criteria apply
meaningfully and seamlessly uniformly to all proposable methods.
Id been using a slightly wordier definition, before Richard suggested the
current simpler one. Id previously considered that simpler definition, but
adopted it at Richards suggestion. I dont know which definition is more
resistant to unproposable methods.
Another thing: doesnt FARCS likewise need a definition of voting X over Y?
Could it be that the reason why FARCS has never been defined that way on EM
is because FARCS has never been defined on EM? FARCS advocates seem unable
or unwilling to precisely define FARCS.
>Ive repeatedly asked you to show that Approval and CR pass or fail >
>Condorcets Critrerion, by your fictitious-ranking approach. You never >
I believe it is not true that you ever asked me this specific question prior
to February. Back in 2005 you asked me e.g. how I would define WDSC.
Ok, Ive asked at least three people to define and apply FARCS, and so I
could have been mistaken about which criterion I asked you to apply it to.
And I showed e.g. why FPP fails minimal defense.
Using FARCS? Not when I asked for an application of FARCS..
I don't remember you asking me to show that some method passes or fails some
criterion under my scheme.
I did, but the important thing is that youre going to answer the question
I'll address this specific question now. This is how it works with CR: It
doesn't matter whether the privileged balloting system is ratings or
rankings since Condorcet doesn't make reference to ratings. Either way, the
"intended vote" contains the ranking data. It doesn't matter how the method
selects its winner; if the privileged balloting system is rankings, then CR
would appear to select its winner for mysterious reasons (judging from the
intended votes). All that matters is who the winner is and whether this
agrees with the Condorcet winner appearing on the intended votes. With
Approval, there are several ways to treat it under this scheme (and I'm
already repeating myself, so I will omit them here), and not one of them
guarantees the election of a CW. I guess it should not be hard to imagine,
that when you suppose that all voters are able to specify unrestricted
rankings, that there is no way to phrase Approval so that it will always
select a CW from these rankings.
Ok, now, I hope that that isnt your definition of FARCS, or you application
of your system to Approval and Condorcets Criterion. I was asking for
something a bit more specific and less sketchy.
Must we still say that no FARCS advocate has ever defined and applied FARCS
Anyway, as I said, you > dont want to speak of preference, but you think
its ok to speak of > intent.
Because there is almost no distinction between "intent" and the cast ballot.
The only distinction is that the former may have to be adjusted to conform
to the requirements of the latter. Instead of "intended vote" I could just
call it the "cast vote" and call the "cast vote" the "adjusted vote."
Do you notice what a roundabout, tangled mess that is? Compare it to the
simple, concise and precise terms in the criteria that I propose, and their
obvious interpretation for real-world concerns.
Jim Hightower asks, How many feet does a dog have if you call its tail a
foot? Answer: Four. Calling a tail a foot doesnt make it a foot.
Sincere preferences and intended votes are not the same thing at all.
You got that right: Sincere preferences have an obvious real-world
interpretation, and are obviously part of the discussion of voting
>The difference is that you enshrine a privileged balloting system,
Ideally the balloting system is flexible enough to represent every method
you deal with. It could be that ratings are sufficient. But as I've always
said, there is no reason to define the system beyond rankings until you want
to use criteria that use more than rankings.
Defining a criterion in terms of a balloting system leaves open the question
of whether that criterion is a rules criterion rather than a results
criterion. Maybe Plurality fails FARCS Condorcet Critrerion because FARCS
is about rankings and Plurality doesnt have rankings. A rules criterion.
On Feb 21 I showed how CR can fail a votes-only interpretation of SFC. Your
reply was Feb 22.
Ill check it out.
So an advantage of using intent over preference is that the voter only > has
> input at one stage. > >
I replied then:
1. I dont know what that means, or how it applies to my criteria or your >
fictitious ranking criteria system. > > 2. If you tell what it means, will
you also tell why its important?
It means you can't tell anything about the cast ballots from the sincere
preferences. Whereas the cast ballots are determined from the intended
votes. You get to use a simpler system without running into problems like
FPP satisfying Condorcet on a technicality.
Youre actually calling FARCS roundabout fictitious tangle a simpler
So why the need for the elaborate, Frankenstein-stitched, inelegant
The only inelegant thing is the notion that cast ballots are automatically
adjusted in order to conform to the ballot's format. In exchange, you don't
have to word criteria as though you don't know what the ballot format is.
So now youre wanting to make a virtue of basing a criterion on a particular
balloting system? And, for you, wording a criterion without mentioning
balloting systems is something that you dont want to have to do? <smiley>
My criteria dont require adjusting the ballots. And, by not mentioning
balloting systems, theyre objective in a way that FARCS criteria are not.
When a criterion is based on a particular balloting system, no one can
really have confidence that a methods failure of the criterion isnt due to
having a different balloting system from the one on which the criterion is
More information about the Election-Methods