James--
You say:
Mike,
You are ignoring the obvious.I reply:
..."the obvious" being that you think that all criteria should be defined the same way. Or at least that all preference criteria, for some reason known only to you, should relate voting to preference in exactly the same way.
Does it occur to you that the things that you say in the posting that I'm replying to are exactly the same things you said your previous posting, the one that I already replied to? Would it do any good to again tell you that the conduct guidelines of EM ask that you not keep repeating answered statements without speaking to the answers? If you feel that there is something incorrect about my answer, and say what you think it is, that would be different. But that isn't what you're doing. You're just repeating.
No, it doesn't matterwhether or not my answer "demolished" what you said. I answered what you said. You said it and I answered it. You said what you had to say, and so did I. So why keep repeating it as if it's new?
There's no reason for different criteria to be defined the same way.
I defined MMC as I did so that it would match Bruce Anderson's intent for that critrerion. I defined my CC as I did so that it would match the traditional intent of CC. I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match the intent of MC, and so that it wouldn't have the ridiculous malfunction that FHC has.
You said:
Like many ranked ballot criteria, MMC cannot be meaningfully applied to non-ranked-ballot methods without being adapted in some way. You adapt it as follows:
I reply:
No, I didn't adapt it to nonrankmethods. I adapted it to apply to all methods. There's a difference.
You continue:
Notice that MC is nothing more than a special case of MMC, where set S contains only one member.
I reply:
No. It isn't. Your version, FHC, is. My version, PMC, is not.
You continue:
Hence, the only difference between the definitions of MMC and MC is that one replaces "candidates in a set S" with a single candidate, e.g. "candidate X".
I reply:
A preference MC version could be written like that. Your FHC is. My PMC isn't.
You're confusing one way of defining a preference MC with how a preference MC must be.
You continue:
"If a set of voters consisting of more than half of the voters prefer candidate X to all the other candidates, and vote sincerely, the winner should be candidate X."
I reply:
No that doesn't follow. A criterion's meaningfulness doesn't depend on whether it copies another criterion. Your FHC loses meaningfulness when it says that Plurality has an advantage over Approval when, in regards to what makes Pluralitly pass FHC, Plurality has no meaningful advantage over Approval.. Your FHC malfunctions seriously in that way.
You continue:
My question to you is simple: Why are your MMC and MC definitions for non-ranked-ballot methods so different from each other, when MC is just a special case of MMC where the majority set has one member?
I reply:
Let me paste something that I said earlier in this message:
I defined MMC as I did so that it would match Bruce Anderson's intent for that critrerion. I defined my CC as I did so that it would match the traditional intent of CC. I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match the intent of MC, and so that it wouldn't have the ridiculous malfunction that FHC has.
You continue:
If you use the MMC definition in (2) to evaluate non-ranked-ballot methods for MMC compliance, why not use the corresponding MC definition in (6) to evaluate non-ranked-ballot methods for MC compliance?
I reply:
I don't use different criterion definitions for nonrank methods as compared to rankmethods. A criterion is no good if it doesn't apply universally and uniformly to all methods.
But as for why I define MC differently from MMC, see above.
I've answered your statements, objections and questions about this. I've answered them several times.
Once I called you an imbecile, and you said that you aren't an imbecile. Can you stop the repetitioin of answered statements that makes you seem that way?
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
