[EM] What it takes to give meaning to a criterion "failure"

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:

> The equal-top-ranking voters are not the ones who have a right to complain
> about a CC violation.

Quite so. The equal-top-ranking voters would have a right to complain
only if their ballots weren't counted in a way that reflects their
wishes and intent. They wouldn't complain about ICT's count.

You said:

> The ones who vote for the [unimproved] CW over the winner are [the ones who have a right to complain about an unimproved CC violation].

[endquote]

No, I disagree. The ones who vote for the (unimproved) CW over the
winner have no right to complain, as long as their preferences are
duly counted--as they are in ICT.

They certainly have no right to complain about how someone else uses
_their_ voting power, even if that use of voting power results in the
defeat to the unimproved CW whom they voted over the winner.







> You
> claim, they are not a majority, so the majority who top-ranked or voted for
> the winner should be more important.

My arguments didn't mention majority.

> So essentially, you are arguing that
> the majority CC is the "meaningful" CC.

No, I didn't mention majority or the Majority Condorcet Criterion.

I repeat that I haven't been talking about MCC. I've been talking about CC.

> Which is a perfectly valid position,
> and one I largely agree with. And in my opinion, saying it that way is more
> convincing than the seemingly circular argument that ICT is a good system
> because ICT's definition of "beats" is a good definition.

No, that isn't a circular argument.

Yes, ICT as a good system, because its definition of "beats" is a good
definition.

Yes, the use of CC with ICT's definition of "beats" is valid and
justified because ICT's definition of "beats" is a good definition.

What would make it a circular argument would be if I said that the
reason why ICT's definition of "beats" is a good  definition is
because ICT uses it, or because its use in CC makes ICT pass CC. I
didn't say either of those things.

Mike Ossipoff