[EM] Rarity, FBC, Condorcet, comparison of criteria

[Michael Ossipoff]

Subject: [EM] Rarity, FBC, Condorcet, comparison of criteria

On 5/7/2012 11:10 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Yeah? How about this, then?:
>
> 27: A>B (they prefer A to B, and B to C)
> 24: B>A
> 49: C  (indifferent between everyone other than C)

Richard replies:

Cases that require carefully chosen numbers, as this example does, become
less important than patterns that occur over many elections.

[endquote]

Excuse me, but did I say that this example works as I describe only with
carefully chosen numbers?

Choose carelessly. These are the requirements:

(A, B, and C stand for the number of voters in the example who prefer
candidates A, B, and C in 1st place)

A + B > C
A > B
C > A
C > B

In other words, the A and B voters are a majority, C is the favorite of the
most, and A is a more popular favorite than B.

You continued:

You pointing out a weakness that can only occur in rare cases...

[endquote]

I'm not. The requirements are as described above.

Here you change your topic to FBC:

You continued:

Mike, if you really want to elevate FBC above the Condorcet criterion, I
suggest that you start by noticing that it is the only voting criterion in
the Wikipedia comparison table that does not link to a Wikipedia article
about the criterion (and such a link is also missing from the text section
just above the table)

[endquote]

You don't like me to repeat things, but I guess that I must repeat for you
that Condorcet wrote in the 18th century, probably in the 1780s. FBC was
defined in
the late 1990s.

I've been told, at EM, that Wikipedia deleted its FBC article because FBC
isn't supported or recognized in journal articles or newspaper articles.

Authority is all-important to you, and that's your business, of course. Of
course there are people like that. I don't expect to convince you regarding
that matter.
To you, it's only undesirable to need to bury your favorite if Wikipedia, or
some authoritative source, says so. :-)

I've told, here, about the adverse political and societal results of
favorite-burial need, and perceived favorite-burial need. Must I repeat that
too?

I don't perceive a horserace or contest between FBC and Condorcet's
Criterion. I'm not interested in one.

You continue:

As for comparing FBC to Condorcet...

[endquote]

You, not I, are the one who feels a need to do that.

You continue:

, have you not noticed that other debates about which criteria is more
important than another criteria typically end up being inconclusive because
mathematics supports the recognition that no single voting method is
objectively "best"?

[endquote]

You're discovered something that has been common knowledge at EM since its
inception.

I've repeated many times that you aren't wrong, just because your standards
are different from mine. What you want, what you prefer, is a personal
subjective
matter.

Anyone can say that they consider any criterion "important".  Choose as you
wish.

I've told about the adverse political and societal results of perceived need
for favorite-burial.

You continue:

As I've said on this forum before, some studies should be done to compare
_how_ _often_ each method fails each criterion.  Those numbers would be
quite useful for comparing criteria in terms of importance.  In the
meantime, just a checkbox with a "yes" or "no" leaves us partially blind.

[endquote]

Because of the kind of voting taught to people by Plurality experience,
combined with media claims, a great many voters are favorite-buriers.

I've had conversations with two of them.

I've already described an Internet presidential poll by Condorcet's method,
and the woman who favorite-buried in that poll. She prefers all of Nader's
policies to those of Kerry and the other Democrats. But she ranked all of
the Democrat candidates above Nader. She felt that that was the only way
that she could be sure of maximally helping the Democrats against the
Republicans. She was right.

I had another conversation with a favorite-burier. I'd described Approval to
her. I told her that, with Approval, there is no possible need to not give
an approval to your favorite.
She, however, due to Plurality and media conditioning, insisted that, in
order to help the Democrat against the Republican, it would be necessary to
not approve Nader. But, because of Approval's transparent simplicity, I soon
showed her that giving a point to Nader has no effect on the fact that
you've advanced the Democrat over the Republican by giving a point to the
Democrat and not to the Republican.

In Approval, I was able to show her that she _didn't_ need to favorite-bury.


In Condorcet, the woman's reason for favorite-burying was correct.

I haven't talked to many people who were new to the voting systems topic.
For those two to both have a strong favorite-burial inclination, even with a
new and better
voting system, strongly suggests that that inclination won't be rare, even
if Plurality is replaced. At someone's first glance at Approval, they might
not be, at first glance, able to overcome their favorite-burial
conditioning, but at least they can then easily be shown that,
favorite-burial would no longer be needed.

The woman in the Condorcet poll didn't care if Condorcet only rarely will
make you regret that you didn't favorite-bury. (I told her that, but it
didn't make any difference).

Mike Ossipoff