[EM] Jameson: Regarding preference criteria

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Jameson:
 
You said:

Reductio ad absurdem. One voter, two candidates. Preference-based
criterion: "If the voter votes for A but actually prefers B, then B should
win".
 
[endquote]
 
Remember that you, not I, propose that criterion.
 
You continue:
 
But, people say, what if they meant to vote for A? Nope, you say,
doesn't fit the criterion.
 
[endquote]
 
Nonsense. How do you propose to establish that someone preferred the one
that s/he voted against, especially if s/he denies it?
 
Your criterion is unusable.
 
You continue:
 
So fine, I can find whether system X meets this
criterion
 
[endquote]
 
No, you can't. 
 
That's because you have no way of determinng someone's
preferences independent of their expression of them.
 
You continue:
 
but we can't have a reasonable conversation about it
 
[endquote]
 
You got that part right.
 
You continue:
 
 
, because
half of the relevant examples are somehow arbitrarily outlawed because they
don't "fit".
 
[endquote]
 
No, it's because your criterion relies on unavailable information.
 
You continue:
 
Preference-mentioning criterion: "Imagine the voter prefers B, but due to
an epileptic seizure, votes for A. The correct winner in this case would be
B. Therefore, whenever we see a vote for A, we should elect B."
 
[endquote]
 
Again, that's _your_ preference-mentioning criterion. Understand that. I agree that
your criterion is ridiculous.
 
You continue:
 
 
I'm
just saying that a criterion can be justified on the basis of preferences,
but, like the system itself, must ultimately speak in terms of ballots and
results.
 
[endquote]
 
Hello? I guess it's necessary to repeat this again:
 
My preference criteria stipulate preferences and relation between preferences and
voting. Thereby, they indirectly stipulate about ballots.
 
Mike Ossipoff