[EM] Markus: Demonstration that Benham & Woodall meet CD

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Markus Schulze <
markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Dear Mike Ossipoff,
>
> premise 6 is ambiguous: "Candidate A would be the unique winner
>
> under sincere voting (...in other words, if the B voters voted
> sincerely, as do all the other voters)."
>
> Does this mean that a method, that doesn't choose candidate A in
> this scenario, automatically satisfies the Chicken Dilemma Criterion?
>
> Or does this mean that a method, that doesn't choose candidate A in
> this scenario, automatically violates the Chicken Dilemma Criterion?
>
>
>

Neither.

It merely means that an example in which method M wouldn't elect candidate
A under sincere voting is an example to which CD doesn't apply. It's an
example that says nothing about whether  M meets CD.

The premise is the set of conditions under which the criterion applies. A
criterion doesn't apply to an example in which the criterion's premise's
conditions are not met. By any criterion's definition, an example in which,
with some method M, a condition in the criterion's premise isn't met, is an
example that says nothing about whether M passes or fails that criterion.

Therefore, an example in which, using method M, candidate A wouldn't have
won under sincere voting, is an example that, by CD's definition, says
nothing about whether M meets CD.

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140109/4b5bcef7/attachment-0003.htm>