If we can't always get optimality while sincerely ranking the acceptable
candidates, at least we can offer what really matters: maximize the
probability that an acceptable will win.
Sincere Protection of Candidates who are Acceptable (SPCA):
If, for a particular voter, the election is an acceptable/unacceptable
situation, then that voter should be able to maximize the probability that
the winner will be an acceptable candidate, while voting all of his/her
preferences among the acceptable candidates..
[end of SPCA definition]
Strong Sincere Protection of Candidates who are Acceptable (SSPCA):
If, for a particular voter, the election is an acceptable/unacceptable
situation, then that voter should be able to maximize the probability that
the winner will be an acceptable candidate, while voting all of his/her
preferences among the acceptable candidates, and without falsifying any
preferences.
[end of SSPCA definition]
MMPO with AERLO meets SPCA.
In an immediately subsequent posting I'll describe an enhancement that
attains SSPCA for MMPO.
Possible alternative wording: Instead of "maximize the probability that the
winnner will be an acceptable candidate", one could instead say: "cause the
winner to be an acceptable candidate in any configuration of other people's
votes for which that voter's ballot can do that. Then, the criterion should
probably speak of a set of voters instead of one voter, even if that might
not be essential.
So far I'm leaving the criterion as first written in this posting.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
