Martin said: Hi Mike. How was your weekend? Let's compare this to the Independance from Clones Criterion. Blake's defn of this is the following (with appropriate defns of clone set, eliminated, etc): >>>>> "If there are alternatives X1, X2 ... Xn that are a clone set, and if one of these clones is eliminated from every ballot, then, if the winner for the old ballots was in the clone set, the winner for the new ballots must also be in the clone set. If an alternative outside the clone set won for the old ballots, the same alternative must win for the new ballots." Now, we could rephrase this using your type of wording, and the first clause would be replaced with: "If there are alternatives X1, X2 ... Xn that are a clone set, or are close enough to a clone set, and..." I reply: I don't have criterion that says "close enough..." When I pointed out that if falsification occurs on a scale insufficient to change the outcome, it's the same as if falsification didn't occur, I was _not_ thereby changing SFC or GSFC. Those criteria still stipulate no falsification. But I mentioned that fact to show how the criterion is useful in public elections even though a few people might falsify. Martin, you make things too complicated for yourself, and you get all confused. Martin continues: Here's another example: "IRV elects the Condorcet winner, provided that third parties do not occur on a scale sufficient to change the outcome." - an absolutely true statement. But if you check it, all it's actually saying is that IRV elects the Condorcet winner, provided there are only two parties in the election. I reply: That's a good IRV guarantee, Martin. I like the fact that IRV can guarantee that. Your IRV guarantee would of course be even more reassuring if there were only 2 parties, and only 2 factions. But we know that to be not so. You don't know that falsification will occur on a scale sufficient to affect the outcome with proposable methods. I suggest that it won't. In our recent voting systems poll, only one person (Blake) falsified. In public elections it's ridiculous to suggest that falsification would happen, with wv methods, on a scale that could change the outcome. Martin continues: Now, you claim that for the wv methods you propose, the typical levels of falsification will be typically unable to stop SFC's gaurantees from working. That's all very well and good - but it's just a claim, and it is entirely possible for a method to pass SFC, but to fail this further claim. So what I'd really like is to have some evidence for your claim. I'd also like to see both instances of "typically" given values: for example, in terms like "if the CW beats B by X%, then falsification can occur on a scale of up to Y%, and B will still not be elected." (provided the rest of the conditions hold. I reply: Regrettably, Martin, you can't have everything that you would like. As I said, if SFC's other modest premise requirements are met, then only falsification can make candidate B win. That's all I'm guaranteeing. I claim that guarantee is useful. I can't convince you, but now we've heard your arguments against it, and my reply. Are we done with this discussion yet? I must admit that I'm not quite sure how you want me to prove to you that falisfication won't change public election outcomes. I can only state that falsification has been rare in polls that I've participated in. If that isn't good enough, then I'm sorry. I don't know what you want. I hope you're able to quit this issue now, since we've both clarified our positions on it. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
