[EM] STAR

[C.Benham]

Toby wrote:

>   I think this is an interesting point. We can ask at a philosophical level what makes a good voting method. Is it just one that ticks the most boxes, or is it one that most reliably gets the "best" result?


Toby,

How are those two counter-posed?  What do you think "the boxes" are about?

> And that's partly because the premise of Condorcet is essentially built on a logical fallacy - basically that if A is preferred to B on more ballots that vice versa then electing A must
> be a better result than electing B.

I'd be interested in reading your explanation of why you think that is a 
"logical fallacy".  What about if there are only two candidates?

> I think generally while passing certain criteria is a good thing,..

Which ones do you have in mind?

Chris B.



> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 22:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Toby Pereira<tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>
> To:"election-methods at lists.electorama.com"
> 	
> Subject: Re: [EM] STAR
>
>
>
>   I think this is an interesting point. We can ask at a philosophical level what makes a good voting method. Is it just one that ticks the most boxes, or is it one that most reliably gets the "best" result? And what do we mean by best result? Are we working from the assumption that there is a best result to begin with (e.g. nearest the median, highest utility, closest possible to Condorcet winner) and looking for a method that most reliably picks that? I think generally while passing certain criteria is a good thing, occasional failures on multiple criteria isn't necessarily worse than strictly passing more criteria but also having worse failures than others. This is very hypothetical of course, and it does depend on the specific criteria.
> However, if someone was naively looking at a list of criteria in isolation without knowing what was compatible with what, I think they would be more likely to put participation ahead of Condorcet than vice versa in a list of importance. But because participation is very hard to achieve (in simple terms you can have score, approval and some other awful methods), it's largely brushed under the carpet. Whereas, on the other hand, Condorcet is largely held up as the biggest deal of the lot on this mailing list. It's not that I think Condorcet is such a bad thing - I just don't think it's the be-all-and-end-all. In terms of voting reform, it can make sense to push for it because it makes intuitive sense, but in an ideal world where everyone was enlightened, I don't think it would have to be a deal-breaker. And that's partly because the premise of Condorcet is essentially built on a logical fallacy - basically that if A is preferred to B on more ballots that vice versa then electing A must
>    be a better result than electing B.
> Toby