[EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending non-Monotonicvoting methods

[Stéphane Rouillon]

>From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: kathy.dopp at gmail.com
>To: "Stéphane Rouillon" <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca>
>CC: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending 
>non-Monotonicvoting methods
>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:43:28 -0700
>
>On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Stéphane Rouillon
><stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > The spoiler effect is a special case of non-monotonicity.
> >
> > A general definition of a monotonic method is:
> > no voter or group of voter could harm a candidate by expressing its full
> > preference toward any higher preferred candidate.
>
>No, not even close.  That definition you are giving is not met by any
>voting system I know of. Can anyone think of one?

Exactly, no electoral system can garantee coherence between the order of 
preferences of a voter
and the impact the participation of that voter has on the result.

>
> > While you restrict monotonicity definition to:
> > no voter or group of voter could harm its favourite by expressing its 
>full
> > preference.
>
>Not even close. I simply use the mathematical definition of monotonic
>functions. Look it up. It's very simple.

It is not so simple and you know it. For a monotonic function:
if pref (a) > pref (b) then result (a) > result (b)

For an election method a and b are not simple values but cover all 
instanciations of every other ballots case. Because some of these 
instanciations represent a collective incoherent will (containing a cycle), 
generic monotonicity cannot be inferred for all cases.

>
> >
> > It is your choice. You chose to disregard the fact that winners, while 
>the
> > voter expresses or not its full preferences, could both not be the 
>favourite
> > of the voters.
>
>I love the way you keep referring to voters as "its". It says
>something about the way you view voters.

It says my mother tongue is french and I try not to discriminate between his 
or her.

>
>Huh?  Your sentence above makes no sense to me. You want to try
>restating it more precisely?

If, by voting or not for your favourite C, you could get either A or B 
elected, I say the method is not
monotonic according to the general definition I use. Voting or not for C 
should have no impact on the result between A and B.

>
> >
> > I do not understand why you want to consider the spoiler effect as a
> > different problem.
>
>Because it IS. Because Arrow and every other expert recognizes it as a
>different problem than monotonicity. Because mathematically it is a
>different problem, etc.
>
> > As soon any voter would learn that its first choice has
>
>These voter "its" again...
>
> > no chance of winning, its second choice would become its new first 
>choice,
> > the spoiler effect leading again to your personal definition of the
> > monotonic dilemma...
>
>Huh*!?
>
>My personal definition? You mean the personal definition that ALL
>mathematicians use?  What do you think I'm so all-powerful that before
>I was born I went back in time and forced all mathematicians to adopt
>a definition for "monontonicity"?
>
>OK I can see I'm wasting my time here.
>
>If anyone wants to send me anything intelligent on this topic, please
>email me personally, off-list.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Kathy

If you can't even recognize there is many definition to mononicity, you are 
definitively wasting your time doing psephology. Search for mono-add-plump 
or mono-add-top for example. By personal, I meant the one among these you 
use. As you cannot provide one by yourself I had to. If as you say:
"I simply use the mathematical definition of monotonic functions. Look it 
up. It's very simple."
Why not copy these simple lines?

As about intelligence, I suppose it is like beauty and disrespect, it's all 
in the eye of the beholder...

Finally I remark you did not comment on auditing paper versions of STV. 
Please do so on-list if you have good arguments, or off-list if you want 
preventing this discussion to harm your legal case.

I hope it helped you prepare for your affidavits.

Stéphane Rouillon, ing. M.Sc.A. Ph.D.(in mathematics)
PS: Being a mathematician is not sufficient to always be logical, neither 
right all the time.