--WDS: In that case, as I said, Ossipoff's SFC definition reduces to
the requirement that the mehtod be a Condorcet method:
"SFC: If no one falsifies a preference, and there's a CW, and a majority of
all the voters
prefer the CW to candidate Y, and vote sincerely, then Y shouldn't win."
I must say, SFC is then rather silly.
It says "if no one falsifies a preference" redundantly since it also says
"a majority of all the voters prefer the CW to candidate Y"
(of course they do, that followed from defn of CW and fact nobody falsified
a preference)
I reply now:
Wrong. Maybe theres a lot of indifference, in which case there neednt be a
majority preferring the CW to Y, even though no one falsifies a preference.
Warren continues:
and redundanty it also says "and vote sincerely" (of course they do, since
nobody falsified a preference)
I reply now:
I believe that my definition of sincere voting is at the website where
Warren read the definition of SFC. As I define sincere voting, for the
purpose of my criteria, voting sincerely requires more than not falsifying a
preference. I have to admit that Im getting tired of holding Warrens hand
and reading my definitions to him.
Let me take a shot at stating my sincerity definition here, without looking
it up:
A voter votes sincerely if s/he doesnt falsify a preference, and doesnt
fail to vote a sincere preference that the balloting system in use would
have allowed in addition to the preferences that s/he actually did vote.
[end of sincere voting definition, if I remember correctly]
The website also has definitions of voting X over Y, voting a preference,
and falsifying a preference. Theyre all consistent with what one would
expect.
SFC is more demanding than the Condorcet Criterion. The wv Condorcet methods
are the only, or nearly the only, methods that meet SFC. Every
pair-wise-count method meets the Condorcet Criterion.
Mike Ossipoff
Warren continues:
It seemed to me Ossipoff probably did not intend to keep repeating himself
for no reason, so I dismissed the preface. However, if one accepts it, then
as I said, Ossipoff's SFC definition reduces to
the requirement that the method be a Condorcet method.
One then has to ask:
1. why is he calling it SFC instead of the Condorcet criterion like
everybody else since 1780?
2. why is he saying the "good" Condorcet methods obey it (all do)?
3. why is he acting as though this proves something, when in fact it is a
tautology?
--Yours in mystification,
Warren D Smith
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
