<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp36f990fcyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">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" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpb18d29d9yahoo_quoted_6025806267" class="ydpb18d29d9yahoo_quoted">
<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></div>
<div><br></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="ydpb18d29d9yqt1237189157" id="ydpb18d29d9yqtfd95228"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Rob<br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>