On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Blake Cretney wrote in part: > > I would agree that the consistency criterion is desirable to the > extent that it can be used as a criticism of methods that fail it. > The consistency criterion is intuitive. But once you think about it, > it doesn't actually make much sense.
That depends on the thinker. > So, I think it is much better to > attack the consistency criterion directly. > > On the other hand, I can envision the following scenario. Candidate X > says, I won decisively in every precinct, but lost over-all, how come? > I retort, what do you mean, in this precinct, more people voted for > candidate Y over you than vice versa. How can you say that you won > decisively in that precinct? > > This retort will always work for any Condorcet completion method, so > they can be defended against someone who claims decisive victories. > I like this point. It helps explain why every Condorcet Method satisfies the "Humble Consistency Criterion." > > All methods will have some results that are counter-intuitive, at > least to some people. What are the counter-intuitive results of Approval? > You can always construct an argument by > claiming that if the public sees such and such a result, they will > revolt, causing chaos, horror, and a bloody purge of election method > theorists. The reality is that the current electoral process gives > frequent counter-intuitive results, and there isn't the slightest hint > of revolution (at least not from that). > There may be lack of customer satisfaction without causing a revolution. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for customer satisfaction. Forest
