[EM] FBC, center squeeze, and CD

[Michael Ossipoff]

And, as I said, in a Mono-Add-Plump failure, you would have made X lose if
your added ballot plumped for any of various other candidates too. It has
nothing to do with the fact that your ballot favored X.

A Mono-Raise failure happens for no other reason than that you changed your
ballot favorably for X. All you did was raise X.

Michael Ossipoff

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.electo
>> rama.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/20161108/199fe537/attachment.htm>