[EM] One example of a wording problem

[Chris Benham]

Michael Ossipoff wrote:

>Chris wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>If the balloting rules don't allow the voters to fully express their 
>>>intended ranking, then we assume that the voters
>>>vote to express as much of it as the balloting rules allow, giving 
>>>priority to expressing as many of their intended
>>>strict pairwise preferences as possible
>>>      
>>>
>
>I reply:
>
>If we take that literally, then, if the actual method is Approval, then the 
>actual ballot has to approve half of the candidates in the intended ranking, 
>because that's the way to expressing as many of that ranking's pairwise 
>preferences as possible. But that isn't what you intend.
>

Mike,
Yes you are right, thanks. If there are 4 candidates A,B,C,D, I want 
both "A" and "ABC" to be both allowable
interpretations on an Approval ballot of the 'intended ranking' A>B>C.

But "A" only expresses 3 pairwise preferences (A>B, A>C, A>D) whereas  
"AB" expresses 4 (A>C,A>D, B>C,
B>D). Also "ABC" only expresses 3 (A>D, B>D,C>D).

In a way what I said maybe wasn't ridiculous, but it wasn't and isn't 
what I intend/ed. I'll re-think it.

Chris Benham

>
>  
>
>  
>