[EM] I made an understatement

[Dave Ketchum]

On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> I said that Plurality only lets you rate one candidate. That isn't  
> true. You're still rating all of the
> candidates in Plurality, but you're required to bottom-rate all but  
> one of them.

Looking ahead, Plurality lets the voter present a small amount of  
information; Approval a bit more; and Condorcet additional - each such  
as the previous methods do not permit.
>
> So Plurality doesn't have a _lack_ of information. It has forced  
> falsification of informtion.
>
> It should be pretty obvious that that can't be desirable. And it  
> shouldn't be surprising, the
> adverse societal consequences of it.
>
> Approval is such a simple, minimal change that there can be no  
> question that Approval is
> an improvement on Plurality, and only an improvement.

Agreed that Approval allows approving more than one, and that each  
approved is preferred over each unapproved, just as the one approved  
in Plurality is preferred over all others.
>
>
> That can't be said for Condorcet or Kemeny, or any other rank method  
> or complex method.

Now it is time to be more careful.

In Condorcet if I give one rank to all I prefer I have given the same  
preference to those ranked over those unranked as I could do with  
Approval's approving.

But ability to use multiple ranks in Condorcet or Kemeny gives me  
additional power - among the ranked candidates my preferences can be  
unequal and I show this by ranking higher each that I prefer over  
other ranked candidates.

Condorcet perhaps should be described as a family of election methods,  
usually agreeing as to details such as winner chosen - such as Kemeny.
>
>
> I don't  know anything about Kemeny's properties, and I was just  
> asking what it does with the
> 2nd set of rankings in my previous posting, and whether or not it  
> passes FBC. I don't claim to
> know Kemeny's properties.

"2nd set" implies misunderstanding - in the Condorcet family voters  
are normally permitted  to use more than two rank values.

"FBC" is simply one of many acronyms for which definitions are hard to  
find (and to verify having found correctly).
>
>
> Ask some people, some members of the public, what they think of  
> various proposed methods.
>
> Mike Ossipoff

DWK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120412/7ee3fa60/attachment-0004.htm>