What is the meaning of the +? =should have been "+1" =I did not hit the "1" key hard enough
I would say it is that if X is ranked/rated strictly first by more than half of the voters, then X should win. =What would co-first candidates imply? > If the method doesn't satisfy FBC, how can this be > regarding as a good > thing, isn't it just making a massive compromising > incentive? It is not regarded as a good thing to fail FBC. =I have to make the antecedents of my pronouns more clear... I meant that FBC failure seems to seriously hurt the majority criterion because it is plausible for a compromise candidate to gain a majority from insincere candidates. I am asking, absent FBC, how valuable is majority compliance? I don't understand why you say "massive." Methods vary widely with respect to how much compromise incentive they provide. =FBC compliant methods have less compromising incentive than non-FBC compliant ones, in general. I called it massive because I perceived it to be noticeably different from FBC compliant ones. FBC compliant methos such as Range may suffer from compression to some extent, but Offensive Order Reversal will not occur. = I regard it as massive because of the Offensive Order Reveral thing. > Does a method count as majoritarian if a majority can > impose its will, but > doesn't necessarily have to? I don't think the term "majoritarian" has an agreed-upon meaning. The way I define the term, it is not directly related to the majority criterion. =Hmm... good point. To some extent I was probing the meaning of the term "majoritarian" that I have heard in previous discussions. I guess what I meant is, "how valuable is allowing a majority to force its will if it so chooses as opposed to always having it get its way?" But the term "majoritarian" would be almost meaningless if it meant that a majority always has some method to make their first preference win. =The only methods that would violate it would be silly ones like Antiplurality and Borda. I agree. But if, in reality, the distinction isn't all that meaningful, is it really worth mentioning as a flaw of a particular system. > Also, how do you define membership in a majority. It depends on the criterion. For the majority criterion simply, membership in the majority is determined by you strictly supporting the same first preference. > Let's pretend Alice votes Candidate X = 100 Candidate Y > = 60 > > With respect to the majority criterion, does she belong in > Camp X, or 100% > in Camp X and 60% in Camp Y? I don't know any definition of the criterion that doesn't refer to first preferences. Even your definition refers to first preferences. =Exactly. Is it best to regard 60% as 60% of a 'first preference' or as not a 'first preference' at all? Rankedisms don't translate perfectly to Range Voting. Gregory Nisbet
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
