<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Kevin:<br><br>You wrote:<br><br>You say it is inelegant to specify assumptions about methods to which criteria apply.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Yes.<br><br>You continue:<br><br>But
your alternative is criteria that have to discuss not just sincere
preferences but also the degree to which voting may be insincere.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Some
of my criteria stipulate sincere voting by some or all voters. Some of
them stipulate other preference/vote relations, such as<br>not having to
vote someone equal to or over one's favorite; or not having to vote
someone over one's favorite; or not having to vote<br>a less-liked candidate equal to or over a more-liked one.<br><br>However my criteria don't discuss degrees of insincerity. My criteria use one, and only one, definition of sincere voting.<br><br>You continue:<br><br>And you need to define these concepts in a universal way, irrespective of ballot format. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I have. I posted that definition years ago. I re-posted that definition within the last few weeks.<br><br>Sincere voting:<br><br>A voter has votes sincerely iff s/he doesn't falsify a preference or fail to vote a genuine preference that the voting system in<br>use would have allowed hir to vote in addition to the preferences that s/he actually did vote.<br><br>[end of definition of sincere voting]<br><br>To falsify a preference is to vote x over y without preferring x to y.<br><br>To vote a genuine preference is to vote x over y when one prefers x to y.<br><br>[end of definitions of falsifying a preference and voting a genuine preference]<br><br>I defined voting x over y in a wordy way that spoke of an election with arbitrarily many candidates and voters.<br>But someone else suggested a much briefer definition:<br><br>A voter votes x over y iff the relation of x's and y's status on hir ballot is such that, if s/he were the only voter,<br>and if x and y were the only candidates, then, with that relation of x's and y's status on hir ballot, x would win.<br><br>[end of someone else's brief definition of voting x over y]<br><br>I
don't know if I like that as much as my longer definition, because of
the awkwardness, and possible ambiguity, of speaking of a relation<br>of 2 candidates' status on a ballot. Well, the relations described in the following paragraph are such status relations.<br><br>Of
course, in Approval, that means approving x but not y. In Plurality it
means voting for x, which implies not voting for y. In a rank method<br>it means ranking x over y. In Range Voting, it means giving a higher rating to x than to y. <br><br>Explicitly specifying those things would be a perfectly adequate definition too, but I prefer<br>a completely method-disregarding definition.<br><br>You continued:<br><br>I don't feel this is more elegant. Possibly better-def... [the rest of what you said didn't copy]<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>What
don't you feel is more elegant? Using one universal definition of
sincere voting that applies to all ballot-formats and methods? <br><br>Or do think that it isn't more elegant for a criterion to apply seamlessly to all methods?<br><br>Mike Ossipoff </div></body>
</html>