[EM] New Critrerion: The Co-operation/Defection Criterion

[Jameson Quinn]

Again, please use the "reply" function on your email program, rather than
rewriting and misspelling the subject line each time.

2011/10/26 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>

>
> Jameson--
>
> I'd said:
>
>
> ??? The situation you describe doesn't satisfy CD's premise stipulations.
>
> [endquote]
>
> You wrote:
>
> Yes it does.
>
> [endquote]
>
> Read CD's premise.
>

Criteria cannot refer to honest preferences, only to voted ballots.


>
>
> > Delegation proposals like SODA have been around for a very long time.
> > They've
> > been independently re-invented many times.
> >
>
> You wrote:
>
> SODA also has a delegation order which helps resolve this
> situation; this is a feature which I have not seen elsewhere.
>
> [endquote]
>
> I proposed one such on EM.
>

By "delegation order" I did not mean chain of delegation; I meant a
one-at-a-time, perfect-information order in which the delegated votes are
exercised. This is an important part of how SODA minimizes the truncation
incentive in situations like this.

>
> I'm sure that delegation would be great....


So we agree on that.

What is FUD?
>

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt; a rhetorical technique.


> Good. Then let's get it enacted. Only time will tell. When proposing it,
> I've gotten
> opposition from people who felt that each person must cast their own vote.


There is a difference between open-ended delegation, and a mandate to pursue
a specific, pre-declared agenda among well-defined options.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111026/009d3739/attachment-0004.htm>