MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
I�d said:
No, the Condorcet's Criterion that was at the website at the technical evaluation page was a Mike style criterioni entirely. It referred to the CW (which you called the IDW, defined as I define the CW), and it stipulated sincere voting. Both the CW and sincere voting are defined by me in terms of preference, and were defined at your website in terms of preference.
Russ replied:
If you stipulate "sincere" voting, then you are eliminating the voting strategy and stipulating that the actual votes cast are identical to the "sincere" or true preferences.
I reply:
Wrong. You need to read my definition of sincere voting before you try to quote it.
Since you don�t, or shouldn�t, have it at your website now, I�ll write it for you here:
A voter votes sincerely if s/he doesn�t falsify a preference, or fail to vote a preference of his/hers which the balloting system in use would have allowed him/her to vote in addition to the preferences that s/he actually does vote.
[end of sincere voting definition]
The wording isn�t as smooth as one might like, but it�s unambiguous.
Russ continues:
In that case, a Mike-style criterion is equivalent to a standard tally-rules-based criterion.
I reply:
...except that no-preference ("tally-based) criteria don�t make reference to preference, and my sincere voting defintion refers to preferences, and so any criterion that stipulates sincere voting refers to preference and is therefore a Mike-style citerion.
Further, the my Condorcet�s Criterion defintiion additionally mentions te CW. The CW is defined in terms of preference. So my Condorcet Criterion, the one that you had at your website while you were permitted to, is entirely a Mike-style criterion.
Russ continues:
You can take any standard criterion, play this trick, and call it a Mike-style criterion.
...by adding to it a stipulation of sincere voting and mentioning the CW? You catch on fast :-)
Then it would indeed be Mike-style criterion.
Russ continues:
You will only be obfuscating the issue and adding nothing of any value, however.
I reply:
You�re all befuddled and confused about what you mean by a Mike-style criterion.
That's exactly what we did with the old Condorcet criterion on our former website
I reply:
Congratulations, that�s correct. We posted a Mike-style criterion when we posted Condorcet�s Criterion.
Russ continues:
, and looking back at it, I realize it was an embarrassment.
I reply:
You suddenly realized that my criteria weren�t any good a few days after I told you that you no longer had permission to have them at your website :-)
Russ continues:
The Condorcet criterion can and should be defined in terms of actual votes only.
I reply:
Yoiu�re saying that it _can_ only be defined that way? Well, if Condorcet himself said it that way, then one could argue that it wouldn�t be Condorcet�s Criterion any other way. But then you have the choice of saying that Plurality passes, or specifically saying that only rank methods pass, or specifically saying that Plurality fails, or saying that the method only applies to rank methods. Then you have a rules criterion, a criterion that makes requirements or premise stipulations that mention a method�s rules. I prefer Mike-style criteria to rules citeria. Mike-style criteria are about results only, not rules.
Anyway, as I was saying, if Condorcet stated a rules criterion, then you could say that, strictly speaking, CC must be a rules criterion. But I call my version Condorcet�s Criterion because it�s the Condorcet�s Criterion version that is not a rules criterion, and which acts as one would expect CC to act, anc whilch doesn�t have the problems that CC, and some other criteria, would have if they don�t mention preference.
Now, as for "should", if all you�re saying is that CC _should_ be defined without mentioning preference, then of course you�re merely expressing a subjecive preference of yours, and of course you have a right to your (newly-acquired) opinion.
I�d said:
No, that Condoret's Criterion was thoroughly a Mike style criterion, for the reasons stated above.
Russ said:
Then "that" Condoret's Criterion wasn't the standard Condorcet criterion.
I reply:
Why don�t you advocate that we keep the current "standard" voting system, Plurality?
I don�t know if there�s just one standard CC definition. It seems to me that I�ve noticed a few non-preference versions that did silly things, such as say that Plurality passes CC, or make rules stipulations in their premise.
Which of those silly versions do you prefer?
But no, my definition is not the former standard definition, if there is a standard definition.
But my non-rules criterion Mutual Majority has gotten quite a bit of use.
Russ continued:
I could just as well define my own version of monotonicity too, but what would it accomplish other than making me look like a fool?
I reply:
I don�t doubt for a minute that that�s exactly what it would do. But, on the other hand, that has never stopped you.
But if the traditional Condorcet Criterion has a fault, or if the various "standard" versions all have their various faults, then hopefully you�ll forgive me if I propose a different one. I use CC very little. It was you who wanted to have my CC version at your website. I wanted to mention at the website that it isn�t the standard version, and you opposed mentioning that.
My CC is so similar to the standard one(s) that it�s well justified to call it CC.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
