Kevin Venzke wrote:
Aside from that, why is it ok to speak of intent, but not preference?
Intent is post-strategy. Here's an example of the process:
1. Say my "sincere preferences" are A>B>C>D>E.
2. Then I apply whatever reasoning and decide that I will be voting D>A>B
and truncate the rest. Then that D>A>B is my "intended vote."
3. At this point I the voter do not make any more decisions. Suppose the
ballot format is such that I can only vote for two candidates equally
and nobody else. Then my "cast ballot" is either D=A or D=B, according
to arbitrary resolution.
Kevin,
Is this exactly what you meant to write? The way it is written, I don't
see how "D=B" is a possible
choice of cast ballot for the voter whose intended ranking is D>A>B. If
D=B is possible, why not
A=B?
I would rather say (in your point 3) that if the method is approval the
voter with an "intended ranking"
of D>A>B (in this field of more than 3 candidates) makes an arbitrary
choice between D or DA or
DAB for his 'cast ballot'.
Chris Benham
Mike,
--- Michael Ossipoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
I share the Venke (similar to Woodall's) approach that the criteria
should assume that the voters intend to submit a ranked ballot (maybe
truncated, maybe with some equal-ranking) and that voters
fill out their actual (maybe restricted) ballots in a way that is
consistent with their intended ballots, and when ballot restrictions
prevent
voters from fully voting their intended ranked ballots the criteria are
based on the intended ballots.
I've already answered about that. It's based on a privileged balloting
system. My criteria make no mention of any balloting system.
But you also can't demonstrate that they are unambiguous for any possible
election method.
Though you go to great lengths to avoid mentioning preferences, you don't
mind saying that the voter intends to vote a ranking, when s/he votes in
Plurality. I've talked to voters, and many of them are adamantly opposed
to
any voting system other than Plurality. They don't intend to vote a
ranking
when they vote Plurality.
Doesn't matter. That's not the point of speaking of "intent."
Could you demonstrate why Approval and 0-10 CR fail Condorcet's
Criterion,
in your system?
Personally I don't have anything to add on these topics. I gave an
example of dealing with CR, and acknowledged that Approval is a weak
point.
Aside from that, why is it ok to speak of intent, but not preference?
Intent is post-strategy. Here's an example of the process:
1. Say my "sincere preferences" are A>B>C>D>E.
2. Then I apply whatever reasoning and decide that I will be voting D>A>B
and truncate the rest. Then that D>A>B is my "intended vote."
3. At this point I the voter do not make any more decisions. Suppose the
ballot format is such that I can only vote for two candidates equally
and nobody else. Then my "cast ballot" is either D=A or D=B, according
to arbitrary resolution.
So an advantage of using intent over preference is that the voter only
has input at one stage. That's exactly as if you were only considering
cast ballots, except that you don't have to worry that perhaps the voter
was not allowed by the ballot to cast his preferred vote.
Preference and intent really take the same approach to not having to
worry about ballot restrictions, in that they both try to regard voter
input before it hits the paper.
Kevin Venzke
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
