[EM] FBC, center squeeze, and CD

[Michael Ossipoff]

Participation belongs to the broad general class of monotonicity criteria,
in which your ballot causes a result opposite to what it says.

You show up & cast a ballot that votes X over Y, and that changes the
winner from X to Y. That's an instance of nonmonotonicity.

Mono-Add-Raise was first named "Monotonicity", but Woodall named a more
generfal large class of monotonicity criteria.

A useful distinction among monotonicity criteria is, it seems to me:


Some monotonicity criteria say:

1. "My ballot made X lose even though it votes X over whoever else won, and
is a change in the ballot-set that should make X more likely to win. (but
it made X lose because of something else that the ballot does)."

Others say:

2. "My ballot made X lose for no other reason than because of a change that
should make X more likely to win.

Failure of a #2 monotonicity criterion seems more ridiculous, more without
an explanation or justification.

Mono-Raise is a #2, and Mono-Add-Plump is a #1. That's why I say that
Mono-Add-Plump failure isn't as bad as Mono-Raise failure.

When MDDTR makes the candidate you plump lose, s/he loses because of the
addition of a ballot, which spoils a majority, not specifically because
your ballot favors that candidate.

Mono-Raise makes the candidate you raised lose for no other reason than
because you changed your ballot in a way that should be favorable to hir.

Maybe Mono-Raise is the only #2--I don't know.

Michael Ossipoff



On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On this subject, wouldn't mono-add-plump be better described as
> participation-add-plump? It's more akin to a participation failure than a
> monotonicity failure.
>
> Changing an existing ballot = monotonicity
> Adding a new ballot = participation
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> *To:* C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au>; EM <election-methods at lists.
> electorama.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 7 November 2016, 21:32
> *Subject:* Re: [EM] FBC, center squeeze, and CD
>
>
> Chris--
>
> You suggested that Mono-Add-Plump failure is worse than Mono-Raise failure
> because people care more about their favorites, and because Mono-Raise
> failure is simpler.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161108/61d97246/attachment.htm>