I'd like to slightly revise my definition of falisifyingness, nonfalsifyingness, etc.
The change is: Where I stipulated some conditions at the beginning, I now add the condition that there be no indifference between the CW and the other candidates (though there can be indifference among the others). So let me start over: A method is falsifying if there are situations (configurations of candidates, voters, & voters' utilities & preferences) where all of the method's equilibria involve order-reversal. A method is nonfalsifying if it isn't falsifying. To reword it: A method is nonfalsifying if in every situation it has an equilibrium that doens't involve order-reversal. A method is strongly nonfalsifying if it's nonfalsifying without the stipulation about no indifference between the CW & the other candidates. [end of definitions] My definitions of expressiveness and conditional complete expressiveness remain the same as before, but of course with the stipulation about no indifference between the CW & the other candidates. Approval is strongly nonfalsifying. Condorcet(wv) is nonfalsifying. Condorcet(margins) is falsifying, as are IRV & Plurality. Over the next few days I'll be posting demonstrations of the facts that I've just stated about methods' falsifyingness & nonfalsifyingness. Maybe I'll get a chance to post some of that tonight, but if not, it will be posted within the next few days. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
