[EM] What is the most useful definition of "monotonicity"?

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Wed Nov 18 19:13:22 PST 2020

 Hi Rob,
I see the wiki pages clearly talk about Mono-raise... Maybe the discussion is confusing, but won't it be worse if you discuss another eight criteria, or favor a less common term for the concept? I could see fleshing out the Woodall section at the bottom, calling out the ones that are Mono-raise variants vs. the other three that are implied by Participation (and so not as obviously relevant to the article's main topic).
A couple more responses:
   >Why do I want to understand the Woodall
>Nine?  Well, I want to understand why he broke it up into nine
>different criteria, giving them names (mono-raise, mono-raise-delete,
>mono-raise-random, mono-append, mono-sub-plump, mono-sub-top,
>mono-add-plump, mono-add-top, mono-remove-bottom). 
(KV) Rereading the articles I have to concede that he did, at least, think they were important... He states in particular a preference for DAC over IRV, due to these criteria, with DAC satisfying 7 of them vs. IRV's 3. But it certainly appears he devised the criteria before inventing DAC.
>I'm also wondering
>why so many election-method experts seem to be conversant in the
>distinction between these, but choose to call them all a single
>criterion, as if there's a simple pass-fail relationship.

(KV) I don't think that's what's happening, I think it's just code-switching based on what terminology will be familiar to the audience one is talking to at that moment. One can't possibly lump them all together as one criterion because basically FPP is the only method that satisfies them all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20201119/2136288f/attachment.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list