[EM] ICT doesn't meaningfully fail CC. CC isn't meaningfully incompatible with FBC.

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Sun Jul 29 10:39:28 PDT 2012

Can you give a specific example where ICT fails the conventional CC, and
your argument why that isn't "meaningful"? The words below don't add up to
anything for me, so I think I need a concrete example.


2012/7/29 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>

> Suppose you rank X and Y both in 1st place.
> You do so because you prefer that X or Y wins.
> If (in un-improved Condorcet) X beats Y, thereby giving the win to
> someone you like much less than X and Y, you won't like that.
> You'd prefer that that not happen.
> In ICT, your equal top-ranking of X and Y counts as your use of your
> voting power toward keeping X and Y from beating eachother.
> ICT counts equal top-rankings more in keeping with your wishes.
> When the verb "beat" is defined consistent with your wishes when you
> equal-top rank X and Y, and when your equal top ranking is interpreted
> as you'd like it to be, then ICT doesn't violate Condorcet's
> Criterion, and Condorcet's Criterion is not incompatible with FBC.
> For the same reason, IC-Smith-T, IC-Schwartz-T, Double-Ended
> IC-Smith-T, and Double-Ended IC-Schwartz-T meet the Smith Criterion
> and Condorcet-Loser.
> Mike Ossipoff
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120729/a68c99da/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list