<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Toby Pereira wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">I'm not a fan of STAR, but I am still
interested in seeing how it stands up to scrutiny given that it
has a following. (Actually I'm not aware of how STAR fails
monotonicity. I was under the impression that it passed.)
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Toby,<br>
<br>
To give you a bit of a preview before I get around to cooking up
all the examples, nothing with such obvious Push-over incentive
can meet mono-raise (aka "monotonicty")<br>
<br>
Suppose X beats Y in the final. Now suppose on some ballots
with Y above X, we raise X so it is now above Y. That could
reduce Y's score enough for it to be replaced in the final<br>
by Z, a candidate that pairwise beats X.<br>
<br>
Voters who are mainly concerned to have their favourite X win and
are fairly certain that X will reach the final will have a strong
incentive to give X max points (5) and then also<br>
give a 4 (or even a 5) to all those candidates that they think X
can beat pairwise.<br>
</p>
<p>If enough voters use that strategy and it fails, both the
finalists could be candidates with little sincere support.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/08/2023 9:38 pm, Toby Pereira
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:736465645.5313905.1692101284422@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="ydp79d2568dyahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ydpe5cc3871yahoo_quoted_2742889147"
class="ydpe5cc3871yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div> On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 06:28:51 BST, C.Benham
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au"><cbenham@adam.com.au></a> wrote: </div>
<div>
<div id="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359">
<div id="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359yqtfd24117"
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359yqt5236108305">
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<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"><br clear="none">
</div>
</blockquote>
>Then you are not using the right boxes.<br
clear="none">
<br>
I think you probably misread my sentence. I would
*not* expect them to *negatively* correlate with a
good result. So I probably would expect passing
criteria to correlate positively with a good result.
Apologies for the convoluted sentence.<br clear="none">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
>Then what do you "look at" ??</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">There's different things
you can look at. But what I said is true, not just my
opinion, so it's a question for everyone. But you can
still look at pairwise comparisons and indeed use a
Condorcet method. But I'd want someone to come to this
by evaluating various methods and deciding that this
is the best compromise overall, rather than deciding
from the outset that this is the One True Way. I'm not
anti-Condorcet, if this is how it's come across.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">>>I would counter this by
saying that it's based on this logical
contradiction.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br clear="none">
>I'm still not seeing this "logical contradiction".</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">It's just the premise
that if A pairwise beats B then society must prefer A
to B. But it makes no sense to say that society
prefers A to B, B to C and C to A. I don't think this
is controversial. It's a centuries-old realisation.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<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 clear="none">
>I don't see that either. So which method that
meets Participation do you like?</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I do actually like both
score and approval. I like their simplicity and the
fact that a complete numerical results list can be
published that's simple and easy to understand. And I
like the fact that there's no hidden weird paradoxes
in either method. Any criterion they fail is pretty
obvious.</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">My absolute favourite
method isn't suitable for many elections because it
has to be done online, but would be suitable for votes
in online communities etc. It's approval voting but
where the current scores are visible and where a voter
can change their vote as much as they like until the
deadline. But because co-ordinated factions might try
to mess with this by voting or changing their vote at
the last minute, I think a non-deterministic end point
might be necessary. So you might have a week of voting
plus and end section that has a half life of one hour.
There may be a sense in which this fails participation
though because with perfect game theoretical voting it
should become Condorcet. However, this is likely to be
from other voters' reactions to your presence in the
voting procedure rather than you voting against your
own interests. This is a fairly nebulous failure and
one I could easily tolerate for a clean results table
and a transparent and simple method. Also it might in
practice not always elect the Condorcet winner if the
Condorcet winner isn't particularly liked. E.g.</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">49 voters:
A>>C>B</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">49 voters:
B>>C>A</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">2 voters: C>A>B</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div
class="ydpe5cc3871yiv4812049359moz-forward-container"
dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">C (the Condorcet winner)
is unlikely to get off the ground in the first place
in this case.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
>STAR fails both of them, "badly".<br clear="none">
<p dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">>STAR is obviously
garbage and a strategy farce, as I'll explain later
on EM.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</p>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I look forward to
seeing it. As I say, I'm not a fan of STAR, but I am
still interested in seeing how it stands up to
scrutiny given that it has a following. (Actually
I'm not aware of how STAR fails monotonicity. I was
under the impression that it passed.)</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="ydpe5cc3871yqt5236108305"
id="ydpe5cc3871yqtfd07461"><br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>