<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Toby,<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">But it is still interesting that STAR does
well in Jameson's simulations.</blockquote>
Not to me, or not in any way that reflects positively on STAR.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> As for what the boxes are about, they are
about ensuring that voting methods have sensible behaviour in
certain situations, so I wouldn't expect them to necessarily
negatively correlate with a "good" result.
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Then you are not using the right boxes.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
It's what I just replied to Kristofer - <span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;">the fact that there's no way that you can
consistently define society's preference in a way that you
can determine whether society prefers A or B by looking at
the pairwise comparison.</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
Then what do you "look at" ??<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;"><br>
</span></span></div>
<span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif;">One of the reasons I bring this up is
that there are some people who think that only a Condorcet
method could even be considered democratic.</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
I am not entirely in that camp, only because meeting the Condorcet
criterion is "expensive". All Condorcet methods have some Burial
incentive (fail Later-no-Help) and fail Favourite Betrayal.<br>
<br>
So I consider some methods that don't have one of those problems
to be acceptable.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><span style="font-family: Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">I would counter this by
saying that it's based on this logical contradiction.</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
I'm still not seeing this "logical contradiction".<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><span style="font-family: Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"> I would also counter
it by saying that someone could equally say <span><span
style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">(perhaps have a
greater claim) </span></span>that a method cannot be
democratic if it fails participation</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
I don't see that either. So which method that meets Participation
do you like?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
Two of the main ones I tend to look out for are monotonicity and
independence of clones because they are obviously things we
would want and they don't seem to be too restrictive in terms of
methods they allow</blockquote>
<br>
STAR fails both of them, "badly".<br>
<p>STAR is obviously garbage and a strategy farce, as I'll
explain later on EM.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/08/2023 6:11 pm, Toby Pereira
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:76337450.4585553.1692002511127@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div class="ydp95ab21f9yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;">
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42);">On Monday, 14
August 2023 at 05:09:31 BST, C.Benham <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" moz-do-not-send="true"><cbenham@adam.com.au></a>
wrote:</span><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ydp226f55d9yahoo_quoted_2356786708"
class="ydp226f55d9yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">>Toby wrote:<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>> 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?<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>Toby,<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>How are those two counter-posed? What
do you think "the boxes" are about?<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I mentioned that there
could be multiple low-level failures versus a few
high-level failures, but also that it was a fairly
hypothetical discussion. I'm not of the view that
because of Jameson Quinn's simulations, it must be the
case that the only way to get the best results is to
sacrifice the strict passing of criteria. However, if we
do define best in terms of utility or the median voter,
I'm agnostic as to what method would best get these
results in practice. But it is still interesting that
STAR does well in Jameson's simulations. As for what the
boxes are about, they are about ensuring that voting
methods have sensible behaviour in certain situations,
so I wouldn't expect them to necessarily negatively
correlate with a "good" result.</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>> 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<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>> be a better result than electing
B.<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>I'd be interested in reading your
explanation of why you think that is a <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>"logical fallacy". What about if there
are only two candidates?<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">It's what I just
replied to Kristofer - <span><span style="font-family:
Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">the
fact that there's no way that you can consistently
define society's preference in a way that you can
determine whether society prefers A or B by looking
at the pairwise comparison. It also doesn't make any
difference if there are only two candidates. It's
just that with two candidates, you won't notice it.
If A and B are the only two candidates, then A might
pairwise beat B and get elected. But if C also
stood, B might be the winner under any of the
sensible Condorcet methods that people on this
mailing list consider. So is A preferred to B or
vice versa? And is it the same answer regardless of
whether C stood? Also if C was unsure about standing
but ultimately did, how would we view the creation
of a cycle? Would we say that it's bad that it
messed up our majoritarian ideals? Or would we say
that it's good because it gave us more information
overall, and with this extra information B was
ultimately rightly selected over A?</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif;">One of the reasons I bring this
up is that there are some people who think that only
a Condorcet method could even be considered
democratic. I would counter this by saying that it's
based on this logical contradiction. I would also
counter it by saying that someone could equally say
<span><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42);
font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;">(perhaps have a greater claim) </span></span>that
a method cannot be democratic if it fails
participation. This isn't to say that I don't like
Condorcet methods, but I don't think it's a good
idea to have them on a pedestal when discussing the
best method to use in a situation. They are not the
last word in democracy.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>> I think generally while passing
certain criteria is a good thing,..<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>Which ones do you have in mind?<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Two of the main ones I
tend to look out for are monotonicity and independence
of clones because they are obviously things we would
want and they don't seem to be too restrictive in terms
of methods they allow. But then with monotonicity, there
is a family of criteria in addition to the "standard"
one, some of which might be more restrictive than
others. One criterion that I consider to be largely a
box-ticking exercise is Local Independence of Irrelevant
Alternatives. But other criteria such as participation
and Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives look great
in the abstract, but are very restrictive in terms of
what they allow. Well, even methods that supposedly pass
IIA in theory (e.g. approval, score) in no way pass them
in practice.</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>Chris B.<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>