[EM] Voting-System Choice for Polls (Just one more thing I want to say)

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Markus Schulze <
Markus.Schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> it is problematic to define a criterion by saying:
>
>    Election method X satisfies criterion Y if it
>    never ... unless this can be justified.
>

That's nice. I didn't define a criterion. I didn't say that I was defining
a criterion.

In many instances, a fault or failing of some methods is pointed out,
described, & discussed long before a criterion is written about it.

A criterion about Beatpath's fault that we're discussing would be a
criterion that applies only to the class of methods that solve cycles by
dropping weakest defeats. ...methods such as MinMax(wv), Smith//MinMax(wv),
SSD, & CSSD, & MAM.

If I refer to that class of methods, I'll call them "Methods that solve
cycles by dropping weakest defeats, in order to result in a candidate not
having a defeat."

I've never liked criteria that only apply to one kind of voting-systems.
I've preferred criteria that apply seamlessly to all methods. So, the
criterion that you're asking for isn't one that I'd be inclined to write.

But, as for what could be said about that, I don't know if I'd call it a
*criterion*. Maybe I'd just call it an obvious fact, an obvious desideratum
for methods that drop weakest defeats in order to result in a candidate not
having a defeat..

You'll say that this is just a re-statement of MAM's rule. But that would
be an unprovable claim about my motivation for saying it. You'll say that I
just wanted to copy MAM's rule, and call it an obvious fact. No, it's the
other way around. This obvious fact is the motivation for MAM. (...& for
Tideman's RP before its MAM refinement.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For methods that solve cycles by dropping weakest defeats, in order to
result in a candidate not having a defeat:

Quite obviously, there's no reason or justification for dropping a defeat
unless it's the weakest defeat in a cycle whose other defeats don't qualify
in that way for being dropped (and therefore can't be ignored).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my previous post on this subject, I justified that statement at length.
That statement of obvious fact isn't merely a copying of MAM's rule. It's
the fact that motivated MAM's rule, which is a re-statement of it.

Miichael Ossipoff





> If criteria were defined in this manner then, whether
> election method X satisfies criterion Y, would only be
> a question of the rhetoric skills of the supporters
> of this method.
>
> Markus Schulze
>
>
> ----
> 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/20161222/60e11368/attachment.htm>