[EM] Strategy-free criterion

[Chris Benham]

Why are we having a public discussion about a voting method criterion 
without anyone giving its definition, and with apparently most of the 
participants in the discussion knowing nothing about it besides its name?

https://electowiki.org/wiki/Strategy-free_criterion

> The*strategy-free criterion*is avoting system criterion 
> <https://electowiki.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion>for 
> evaluatingvoting systems <https://electowiki.org/wiki/Voting_system>.
>
>
>     Definitions
>
> A sincere vote is one with no falsified preferences or preferences 
> left unspecified when the election method allows them to be specified 
> (in addition to the preferences already specified).
>
> One candidate is preferred over another candidate if, in a one-on-one 
> competition, more voters prefer the first candidate than prefer the 
> other candidate.
>
> If one candidate is preferred over each of the other candidates, that 
> candidate is called "Condorcet candidate" or "Condorcet winner".
>
>
>     Statement of criterion
>
>     If a Condorcet candidate exists, and if a majority prefers this
>     candidate to another candidate, then the other candidate should
>     not win if that majority votes sincerely and no other voter
>     falsifies any preferences.
>
> In a ranked method, it is nearly equivalent to say:
>
>     If more than half of the voters rank/x/above/y/, and there is no
>     candidate/z/whom more than half of the voters rank above/x/,
>     then/y/must not be elected.
>

I think this evolved into the Minimal Defense criterion, the "votes-only 
version" of which says that if more than half the voters vote A over B 
and B no higher than equal-bottom then B can't win.



On 31/05/2024 9:46 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Some time ago, I wrote a criterion that I called 
> Strategy-Free-Criterion (SFC).
>
> Is that what you were referring to?
>
> It was about a circumstance in which wv Condorcet is strategy-free. At 
> that time, autodeterence hadn’t been considered.
>
> SFC didn’t catch-on, & I haven’t heard mention of it lately, & so I 
> don’t know it’s definition. But wv Condorcet is strategy-free in a 
> meaningful sense.
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 05:07 Michael Ossipoff 
> <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 14:15 Closed Limelike Curves
>     <closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com>
>     Ppwrote:
>
>         I'm trying to work out how the strategy-free criterion
>         actually relates to strategy, because it just sounds like it
>         means the majority-Condorcet criterion ("if a candidate
>         majority-beats every other, they have to win if everyone is
>         honest"). @Michael Ossipoff ?
>
>      Closed, isn’t “Strategy-Free Criterion” your new name for FBC.
>
>     It’s a very inaccurate name. FBC-complying methods aren’t
>     strategy-free in any sense.
>
>      But they’re free of any need for *drastic* defensive strategy
>     (favorite-burial or any defensive order-reversal).
>
>     You want strategy-free? The wv Condorcet methods, such as RP(wv) &
>     MinMax(wv), are strategy-free in a meaningful sense…effectively
>     free of need for any defensive strategy…due to their autodeterence.
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240601/de4cf45a/attachment.htm>