[EM] Jameson: Regarding preference criteria

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/11/22 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>

>
> Jameson:
>
> I'd said:
>
> Condorcet's Criterion:
>
>
>
> If, for every y not x, no fewer people prefer x to y than y to x, and
> everyone votes sincerely,
>
> then x should win.
>
> You replied:
>
> My point is that this is equivalent to:
> If
>  the ballots are such that it could be the case that, for every y not x,
>  no fewer people prefer x to y than y to x
>
> , and everyone votes
> sincerely, then x should win.
>
>
>
> By "equivalent" I mean that it is passed and failed
> by exactly the same methods.
>
> [endquote]
>
> Are you sure? Say, in Plurality, x gets more votes than anyone else. S/he
> wins as a result.
>
> With those ballots, it could be that for every y not x, no fewer people
> preferred x to y than y to
> x and everyone voted sincerely. Maybe people who voted for x didn't have
> any preferences other than for x over
> everyone else. Therefore, their voting was sincere. The ballots are
> consistent with that.
>
> So, what you said is not equivalent to the criterion that you quoted above.
>

Are you seriously claiming that a method passes a criterion because it
passes in one case? Even in that one case, the same criterion probably
requires that Y, Z, and W also win, so the method does not pass it. (Yes,
criteria can require contradictory things for some ballot types without
themselves being contradictory. It just means no method with those ballot
types will ever pass, as I said in my prior message).


>
> You continued:
>
>  But my statement is still better in that it
>  prevents pedants from refusing to face cases where the
> criterion-required behavior may not actually be a good idea.
>
> [endquote]
>
> Sincere voting might not be a good idea for someone who could benefit from
> offensive order-reversal in a
> Condorcet-Criterion-complying method. But that has no effect on the
> meaning or validity of the criterion. You haven't said
> how a pedant could genuinely find fault with CC as I defined it above.
>

<further argument deleted>

Let's just stop, OK? We're not getting through to each other, and we're the
only people on the thread. I still know that you're a smart person who just
happens to be wrong, but the more you treat me like a stupid person, the
more tempted I am to believe you are one. So, the end. Nobody else cares.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/886cdec1/attachment-0004.htm>