[EM] A definition for your criteria system
mikeo2106 at msn.com
Wed Mar 21 11:01:12 PDT 2007
Chris quoted my definition of FARCS:
>Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > FARCS stands for Fictitiously Assumed Rankings Criteria System.
> > Because no FARCS advocate on EM has defined FARCS, Im 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 criterions
> > premises stipulations about rankings.
> > 2. Specify each voters actual vote (using the actual balloting system
> > of the method being tested) in such a way that s/he doesnt 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
> > doesnt comply with the criterions requirement, then you have written
> > a successful failure example.
> > [end of FARCS definition]
>Regarding (1), I'm not sure exactly what "the criterions premises
>stipulations about rankings" means.
A criterions premise is the part that states the conditions under which the
criterion applies. Its the if part of the criterion. (The ,then
part of the criterion is the criterions requirement).
If a criterion is intended to be used with FARCS, then its stipulations
about voting will be about rankings.
>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.
Good point. Condorcets method would fail Condorcets Criterion, would it
So, how would you avoid that? Youd change (2) so that the failure-example
writer isnt allowed to modify the intended rankings if the tested method
is a rank method. Of course if the tested method is a nonrank method, then
the intended ballots must be modified, because the two balloting systems
dont match. Then, the failure example writer is free to modify the
intended rankings in any way that is consistent with the intended rankings,
and may contrive a modification that results in failure of the criterion.
And thats because, for the nonrank method, the balloting systems dont
match. Because, if the method is a rank method, the balloting systems match,
it isnt necessary to modify the intended ballots. And you say we shouldnt
let the example writer do so, because you want to make Condorcet meet
Do you see the contrived nature of that choice? Do you see how FARCS favors
a method whose balloting system matches FARCS privileged balloting system?
Thanks for pointing that out.
More information about the Election-Methods