[EM] A completely general definition of voting x over y.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Kevin--

No matter how unconventional a balloting format you suggest, or how bizarre and unproposable a method of determining who
wins, this definition will apply and mean something. It also works fine for all methods that have been used or proposed:

Definition of voting x over y:

You're voting x over y if switching x and y on your ballot is more likely to change the winner from x to y than from y to x.

[end of definition of voting x over y]

In all actually proposed or used methods, it's always obvious that one is a lot more likely than the other. But you might propose
a method in which that isn't so. You might propose a method in which it's unknowable whether, by my definition, you're voting
x over y or voting y over x. But such a method could hardly be called a voting system. The whole point of voting is that, at least probably,
you're helping someone against someone else.

If you like, "more likely" could be defined by, or replaced by, "consistent with more configurations of other voters' ballots", but such
a change isn't necessary.

If you propose a voting system in which, by my definition, it's unknowable whether you're voting x over y, or voting y over x, that's ok, 
as long as Rob Richie doesn't spend enough to get it enacted somewhere.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111119/b6514a2a/attachment-0003.htm>