Russ said:
FBC is a great example of a Mike-style criterion that does nothing but complicate the idea it attempts to express. Why did Mike create this "criterion"? Probably because he didn't understand that other election method criteria are based on cast and tally rules votes only.
I reply:
What are cast and tally rules votes?? :-)
Are you trying to say that other criteria are based on votes rather than preferences? This may be difficult for you to understand, but my goal never was to copy other criteria. If there had been other criteria that made the distinctions that my criteria make, then I wouldn�t have written my criteria.
Russ continues:
And what does FBC mean in standard English? It means that Approval never gives any voter any incentive to not approve his favorite candidate, whereas plurality, IRV and other methods do.
I reply:
No. FBC doesn�t mean that. FBC�s defiition doesn�t mention any voting system. But if you wanted to reword it informally, you could say that FBC complying methods never give anyone incentive to bury their favorite.
Russ continues:
Thanks for that brilliant insight, Mike.
I reply:
You mean the one that you asked for permission to put up at your website, and then at first resisted deleting when I told you to delete my contributions from your website?
You know, there�s reason to question Russ�s sincerity about his sudden opposition to my criteria, because he asked me for permission to have them at his website; he kept them at his website for years, he kept asking questions about them, trying to undestand them (but now reveals that he doesn�t understand what he posted at his website); and then strenuously objected when I told him to remove my contributions from his website. But within a few days after that request, Russ suddenly discovers that my criteria aren�t "useful", and begins to parrot the objections to them that he�d heard all along.
I must admit that I�m not interested in whiether the facts involved in compliance and noncompliance are newly-discovered. I�m not interested in who discovered those facts. I�m interested in the methods�propoerties, regardless of whether or ot their faults and advantages are new discoveries.
Russ continues:
But wait ... isn't voting another candidate *equal* to your favorite a kind of "betrayal" too?
I reply:
Another astounding new discovery from Russ.
Russ coninues:
If I told my wife that she has equal standing with some other woman, I'll bet she'd feel "betrayed"! Which just goes to show that Mike's "criteria" can be misleading.
I reply:
Russ apparently would like methods that meet a criterion that requires that no one ever have incentive to vote someone equal to or over his favorite, or that requires that no one ever have incenive to reverse a preference or fail to vote a preference. Sorry, Russ, but I can�t help you there.
But though we can�t have everything that we�d like, criteria are about what we _can_ have in a voting system.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
