[EM] Issues with the Majority Criterion

[Greg Nisbet]

What is the meaning of the +?

=should have been "+1"
=I did not hit the "1" key hard enough

I would say it is that if X is ranked/rated strictly first by more than
half of the voters, then X should win.

=What would co-first candidates imply?

> If the method doesn't satisfy FBC, how can this be
> regarding as a good
> thing, isn't it just making a massive compromising
> incentive?
It is not regarded as a good thing to fail FBC.

=I have to make the antecedents of my pronouns more clear... I meant that
FBC failure seems to seriously hurt the majority criterion because it is
plausible for a compromise candidate to gain a majority from insincere
candidates. I am asking, absent FBC, how valuable is majority compliance?

I don't understand why you say "massive." Methods vary widely with
respect to how much compromise incentive they provide.

=FBC compliant methods have less compromising incentive than non-FBC
compliant ones, in general. I called it massive because I perceived it to be
noticeably different from FBC compliant ones. FBC compliant methos such as
Range may suffer from compression to some extent, but Offensive Order
Reversal will not occur.

= I regard it as massive because of the Offensive Order Reveral thing.

> Does a method count as majoritarian if a majority can
> impose its will, but
> doesn't necessarily have to?
I don't think the term "majoritarian" has an agreed-upon meaning. The way
I define the term, it is not directly related to the majority criterion.

=Hmm... good point. To some extent I was probing the meaning of the term
"majoritarian" that I have heard in previous discussions. I guess what I
meant is, "how valuable is allowing a majority to force its will if it so
chooses as opposed to always having it get its way?"

But the term "majoritarian" would be almost meaningless if it meant that a
majority always has some method to make their first preference win.

=The only methods that would violate it would be silly ones like
Antiplurality and Borda. I agree. But if, in reality, the distinction isn't
all that meaningful, is it really worth mentioning as a flaw of a particular
system.

> Also, how do you define membership in a majority.
It depends on the criterion. For the majority criterion simply, membership
in the majority is determined by you strictly supporting the same first
preference.

> Let's pretend Alice votes Candidate X = 100 Candidate Y
> = 60
>
> With respect to the majority criterion, does she belong in
> Camp X, or 100%
> in Camp X and 60% in Camp Y?
I don't know any definition of the criterion that doesn't refer to first
preferences. Even your definition refers to first preferences.

=Exactly. Is it best to regard 60% as 60% of a 'first preference' or as not
a 'first preference' at all? Rankedisms don't translate perfectly to Range
Voting.

Gregory Nisbet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081015/ca36aea3/attachment-0003.htm>