Chris, --- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit�: >> So the criterion means that if X is mentioned on fewer ballots than Y received >> first-place votes, we can't pick X. It sounds like a good criterion to me, >> because it seems unlikely that, in this case, we could possibly have a good >> reason, sufficient information, to think that X is a better pick than Y.
> CB: For the time being I am skeptical. I don't see why we need this as well as > Monotonicity. Markus gives this example in his paper: 11 AB 7 B 12 C According to Plurality, A must not be elected. Monotonicity may not be sufficient here, because of the role B may play in deciding the winner. > This is the first election-methods criterion that I have seen that employs the > word/concept > "probability". The term "probability" isn't necessary to define it. As well, off-hand, Woodall's definition of Participation uses the term, and Markus uses it in his definitions of Monotonicity and Clone Independence, without using it to define Participation or Plurality. > I think that there might be a place for "Weak Monotonicity" as a fundamental > standard for those who like to rigorously avoid any reference to > sincerity/insincerity in > their criteria. Something which just says that a candidate X generally placed higher > on the > ballots than candidate Y should have a greater probabilty of winning, just to knock > on the > head any absurd method like "elect the candidate with the greatest number of second > preferences". Such a method would fail any definition of Monotonicity I've heard of. Raising a candidate to first place on some ballots could clearly make him lose. Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
