Kevin said:
Hi, By the way, you can also ensure a method satisfies SFC by having it
comply with this votes-only criterion: "If more than half of the voters rank
A over B, but there is no majority of the voters ranking some third
candidate over A, then B doesn't win."
I reply:
First, does Kevins criterion apply only to rank methods? My criteria apply
to all methods.
Or if we change the verb rank to vote, and apply the criterion to all
methods, then Plurality meets Kevins criterion.
Kevin continues:
Personally I feel that SFC *is* more about avoiding an embarrassing result,
than about providing a strategy guarantee
I reply:
Kevin can personally feel anything that he wants to. And if he chooses to
not tell us why he personally feels it, thats fine too. Its pretty obvious
that SFC provides a strategy guarantee: The majority that it refers to can
defeat whomever they like less than the CW, by doing nothing more than
voting sincerely, and without knowing who the CW is, as long as no one
falsifies.
.
And remember that it, though the criterions premise stipulates that no one
falsifies, isnt really necessary that _no one_ falsify. Its enough if not
enough falsify to change the outcome.
However, if a failure to meet SFC would embarrass Kevin, then I laud Kevins
aesthetic taste.
Kevin continues:
... --- Michael Ossipoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > SFC is more
demanding than the Condorcet Criterion. Hm, I don't think I would say
that... You can satisfy one and not the other. And I can think of a couple
of criteria compatible with SFC but not Condorcet.
I reply:
Its probably ultimately a subjective individual opinion, which criterion is
more demanding. But SFC must be more difficult to meet, since all
pair-wise-count methods meet CC, but only the wv Condorcet methods meet SFC.
Is there a method that meets SFC but fails CC? There are certainly methods
that meet CC but fail SFC.
Maybe Kevin and I have different meanings for criterion demanding-ness.
Mike Ossipoff
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
