[EM] Kevin: Votes-only criteria vs preference criteria

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Kevin:

You wrote:

You say it is inelegant to specify assumptions about methods to which criteria apply.

[endquote]

Yes.

You continue:

But
 your alternative is criteria that have to discuss not just sincere 
preferences but also the degree to which voting may be insincere.

[endquote]

Some
 of my criteria stipulate sincere voting by some or all voters. Some of 
them stipulate other preference/vote relations, such as
not having to
 vote someone equal to or over one's favorite; or not having to vote 
someone over one's favorite; or not having to vote
a less-liked candidate equal to or over a more-liked one.

However my criteria don't discuss degrees of insincerity. My criteria use one, and only one, definition of sincere voting.

You continue:

And you need to define these concepts in a universal way, irrespective of ballot format. 

[endquote]

I have. I posted that definition years ago. I re-posted that definition within the last few weeks.

Sincere voting:

A voter has votes sincerely iff s/he doesn't falsify a preference or fail to vote a genuine preference that the voting system in
use would have allowed hir to vote in addition to the preferences that s/he actually did vote.

[end of definition of sincere voting]

To falsify a preference is to vote x over y without preferring x to y.

To vote a genuine preference is to vote x over y when one prefers x to y.

[end of definitions of falsifying a preference and voting a genuine preference]

I defined voting x over y in a wordy way that spoke of an election with arbitrarily many candidates and voters.
But someone else suggested a much briefer definition:

A voter votes x over y iff the relation of x's and y's status on hir ballot is such that, if s/he were the only voter,
and if x and y were the only candidates, then, with that relation of x's and y's status on hir ballot, x would win.

[end of someone else's brief definition of voting x over y]

I
 don't know if I like that as much as my longer definition, because of 
the awkwardness, and possible ambiguity, of speaking of a relation
of 2 candidates' status on a ballot. Well, the relations described in the following paragraph are such status relations.

Of
 course, in Approval, that means approving x but not y. In Plurality it 
means voting for x, which implies not voting for y. In a rank method
it means ranking x over y. In Range Voting, it means giving a higher rating to x than to y. 

Explicitly specifying those things would be a perfectly adequate definition too, but I prefer
a completely method-disregarding definition.

You continued:

I don't feel this is more elegant. Possibly better-def... [the rest of what you said didn't copy]

[endquote]

What
 don't you feel is more elegant? Using one universal definition of 
sincere voting that applies to all ballot-formats and methods? 

Or do think that it isn't more elegant for a criterion to apply seamlessly to all methods?

Mike Ossipoff 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111118/9cdbcf40/attachment-0003.htm>