[EM] A definition for your criteria system
chrisjbenham at optusnet.com.au
Wed Mar 21 08:27:05 PDT 2007
Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> FARCS stands for Fictitiously Assumed Rankings Criteria System.
> Because no FARCS advocate on EM has defined FARCS, I’m going to define
> it in this posting.
> Definition of FARCS, consisting of instructions for writing a
> criterion failure example in the FARCS system:
> 1. Specify a set of voter rankings that complies with the criterion’s
> premise’s stipulations about rankings.
> 2. Specify each voter’s actual vote (using the actual balloting system
> of the method being tested) in such a way that s/he doesn’t vote X
> over Y when your ranking for that voter ranks Y over X.
> 3. If you can thereby specify actual votes that give a result that
> doesn’t comply with the criterion’s requirement, then you have written
> a successful failure example.
> [end of FARCS definition]
Regarding (1), I'm not sure exactly what "the criterion’s premise’s
stipulations about rankings" means.
Your point (2) is inadequate, because it could be that the voter intends
to strictly rank some candidates while the actual
used method allows but not compels the voter to equal-rank them. By this
definition it could be possible to create a
"criterion failure example" by having "actual votes" with equal-ranking
where the voter intended strict ranking, even though
the the used method would have allowed the intended strict ranking.
More information about the Election-Methods