<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpff04b5b8yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Just to add to this - monotonicity looks at the fate of the candidate, whereas participation looks at the fate of the voter. But where only one candidate is listed on the ballot, their fates are intertwined.</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpd43e3923yahoo_quoted_6327991690" class="ydpd43e3923yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Tuesday, 17 November 2020, 09:19:22 GMT, Toby Pereira <tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543"><div><div class="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543ydp36f990fcyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">I actually meant to say that mono-add-plump, not mono-add-top, that is just a specific case of participation. The new voter is only ranking one candidate, so if that causes the candidate to lose, then it is a failure of participation. But anyway, I think this is good work that you're doing. I'll have a look through your list.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Toby</div><div><br clear="none"></div>
</div><div class="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543yqt4771100003" id="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543yqt61918"><div class="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543ydpb18d29d9yahoo_quoted" id="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543ydpb18d29d9yahoo_quoted_6025806267">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Tuesday, 17 November 2020, 08:59:30 GMT, Rob Lanphier <robla@robla.net> wrote:
</div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Thanks Toby! Given the private and public responses I've gotten to my<br clear="none">question, and the deeper understanding of "the Monotonicity criterion"<br clear="none">that I'm developing, I think that it makes sense to figure out how<br clear="none">"the Woodall nine" (as I'll start calling them) map to "monotonicity"<br clear="none">when talking to people who understand matrix addition.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">More below...<br clear="none"><br clear="none">On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:17 AM Toby Pereira <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">> I think the scenarios where new ballots are added have more in common with<br clear="none">> participation than monotonicity, in terms of how it is normally understood in<br clear="none">> voting theory at least.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Let's use the Woodall Nine to talk about this. What would you say the<br clear="none">mapping is? I started coming up with my own version of the list<br clear="none">(which was serious), but this became a self-parody. The format of<br clear="none">each line is<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* woodall-name - robla-named-criterion ("Proposed Wikipedia/electowiki Article")<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Here's the mappings as I saw them on my first runthough:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">* mono-raise - dont-muck-with-ballots-criterion ("Monotonicity (Classic)")<br clear="none">* mono-raise-delete - participation-criterion ("Monotonicity (Nuke ballots)")<br clear="none">* mono-raise-random - adding-random-ballots-causes-mayhem-criterion<br clear="none">("Monotonicity (Add random)")<br clear="none">* mono-append - fill-in-ballot-bubbles-criterion ("Monotonicity (Add<br clear="none">preference)")<br clear="none">* mono-sub-plump - replace-ballots-criterion ("Monotonicity (Erase preference)")<br clear="none">* mono-sub-top - replace-with-new-winner-criterion ("Monotonicity ()")<br clear="none">* mono-add-plump -<br clear="none">add-incompletely-ranked-ballots-to-cause-loss-criterion ("Monotonicity<br clear="none">(Add incomplete ballots)")<br clear="none">* mono-add-top - add-top-scored-but-mostly-random-criterion<br clear="none">("Monotonicity (Add mostly random)")<br clear="none">* mono-remove-bottom -<br clear="none">remove-bottom-ranked-Condorcet-loser-ballots-criterion ("Monotonicity<br clear="none">(Remove Condorcet loser haters)")<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I think this thing needs to exist in the world, so I'm actually going<br clear="none">to keep working on it here:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><<a shape="rect" href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/User:RobLa/Woodall-to-RobLa" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electowiki.org/wiki/User:RobLa/Woodall-to-RobLa</a>><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Toby, I would love for you and others on this mailing list to come up<br clear="none">with more serious versions. I spent about an hour trying to be<br clear="none">serious when coming up with my mappings, and I think it was a valuable<br clear="none">exercise. My fear: there are many electoral reform advocates who will<br clear="none">say "I understand the monotonicity criterion". However, most of<br clear="none">those people wouldn't be able to answer this question: "what do YOU<br clear="none">mean when you say 'monotonicity criterion'?" My guess: they would<br clear="none">deflect, and say "I know someone who knows what it means, and I've<br clear="none">never really understood it, but I THINK it means this: xyz", and then<br clear="none">their "xyz" would be an oversimplified example involving Woodall's<br clear="none">"mono-raise" or perhaps "Participation" or something vaguely related<br clear="none">to Pareto efficiency. They probably don't understand very well, and<br clear="none">my hunch is that most people on this mailing list are overconfident<br clear="none">with THEIR understanding of "monotonicity".<br clear="none"><br clear="none">When someone asks "What is the 'monotonicity criterion'?", it seems<br clear="none">the correct answer is to throw the question back at them: "before I<br clear="none">explain: do you know what 'monotonicity' is?". If it seems they<br clear="none">aren't very well-versed in advanced mathematics, and they aren't<br clear="none">familiar with what a monotonically-increasing sequence is, then assume<br clear="none">that it's time to back off the math jargon. I think "monotonicity<br clear="none">criterion" seems to be a terrible name for talking about electoral<br clear="none">reform.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">That's the reason why I want to talk about the Woodall Nine. I'd like<br clear="none">to come up with layperson names for each of them, and possibly map<br clear="none">them to various criteria that have Wikipedia articles about them. If<br clear="none">there's not yet a Wikipedia article, maybe an electowiki article. If<br clear="none">there's not yet an electowiki article, maybe a section of an<br clear="none">electowiki article.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Responding to one last bit of your email:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> Mono-add-top is just a specific case of participation.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Are there any other mono-woodall methods that are subsets of the<br clear="none">Participation criterion?<br clear="none"><<a shape="rect" href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Participation_criterion" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Participation_criterion</a>><div class="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543ydpb18d29d9yqt1237189157" id="ydpd43e3923yiv5822968543ydpb18d29d9yqtfd95228"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Rob<br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>