[EM] Replies to two postings from Jameson Quinn

[Jameson Quinn]

Reductio ad absurdem. One voter, two candidates. Preference-based
criterion: "If the voter votes for A but actually prefers B, then B should
win". But, people say, what if they meant to vote for A? Nope, you say,
doesn't fit the criterion. So fine, I can find whether system X meets this
criterion; but we can't have a reasonable conversation about it, because
half of the relevant examples are somehow arbitrarily outlawed because they
don't "fit".

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." Now, it is
easy to say why this is a silly criterion: "But if they meant to vote for
A, then A is right."

I'm not implying your criteria are this silly, or even silly at all. 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.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111117/a349c93b/attachment-0004.htm>