Markus, I used those words to characterize other things you'd said, on different
topics. I didn't apply those words to sincerity definitions.
>
>The reason why Mike Ossipoff defines "sincerity" the>way he defines it is:
The only use of my sincerity definition is for my criteria. It works for them, but
, other than for that practical use, I don't have a sincerity definition. I don't claim
that my sincerity definition is the best one. For instance, my definition requires not
avoidably leaving preferences unvoted, and some of us have now agreed that sincerity
shouldn't require that.
I'm going to stop using "sincerity" in my criteria. I'm going to say "votes completely"
instead of "votes sincerely". I'm not contending in the issue of how to define sincerity.
I've agreed that my definition isn't the best. Approval? Brams & Fishburn's definition
for Approval is consistent with my initial definition. But I don't currently have a sincerilty
definition that I advocate.
I told you what's wrong with your definition. Check my previous posts.
For you, voting for your favorite in Plurality when you find out that he might be able
to win, is insincere.
Mike Ossipoff
He wants to be able to claim that
>it doesn't make any sense to vote "insincerely" under >Approval Voting. Therefore he defines "sincerity" in >such a way that even bullet voting is a "sincere" >voting behaviour under Approval Voting. > >Therefore you should ask yourself: "Is bullet voting >a sincere voting behaviour?" And if your answer is "No!" >then you have to reject Mike's definition of "sincerity." > >Markus Schulze >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
