Hello, On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 08:45:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > I'm going to focus only on your claim that this page shows an example > of the violation of monotonicity by Manoj's proposal. > > Monotonicity (http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC) requires > "With the relative order or rating of the other candidates unchanged, > voting a candidate higher should never cause the candidate to lose, > nor should voting a candidate lower ever cause the candidate to win." > > But, on your page, I don't see any examples of "voting a candidate higher > with the relative order or rating of other candidates unchanged". > > Instead, I see one example of an introduced vote where B, C and A > are all changed with respect to the default option.
Well, maybe not strictly Monotonicity, but it is an example where a vote in favour of B causes B to loose. This is a problem. And the problem is caused by the per-option quorum. I hope this helps, Jochen -- Omm (0)-(0) http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html
pgpSVhsWfCd0S.pgp
Description: PGP signature