Kristofer: You said:
Let me try that: "In other words, I'd asked you to show a clone problem for Plurality. You didn't do that. Of course there isn't a clone problem for Plurality. In your Plurality Clone-Independence failure example, half of the A preferrers, when A2 is introduces [sic] as a clone of A, rank A2 in first place, and demote A to 2nd place. But you know, they don't have to do that. [endquote] Plurality doesn't have rankings. You continued: If they want to play it safe, in Plurality, they hold a primary and find out which A to support. Then they vote only for him." [endquote] Plurality has a notorious clone problem. It's difficult for voters to organize to determine and agree on which one of the clones (other other favorites among a set of acceptable candidates) they should combine their Plurality votes on. Your effort to liken ICT to Plurality in that regard is ridiculous. In my previous post, I agreed that the voters who prefer A to A2 have their expectation and situation worsened by the addition of A2, but it should be emphasized that the voters who prefer A2 to A have their situation and expectation improved by the addition of A2. Their only dilemma is about whether or not to try for even more, by the gamble of not top-ranking A. As I said, that hardly qualifies as a problem. You said: See how easy it is to say that method X doesn't fail criterion Y if you apply some procedure external to the method itself to fix the problem? [endquote] All methods, including TUC, and even including the methods that I recommend, have strategy problems worse than that of the initial A-preferrers who now prefer A2 to A. After you defined Clone Independence, I didn't claim that ICT doesn't fail it. But criterion failures differ in their importance, in the seriousness of the resulting strategy dilemmas or problems. You need to remember that TUC is far from strategy-free. You said: the A-voters might be Nader/Gore voters and would prefer Nader to win above Gore, and thus have to walk the tightrope between certainly getting Gore, or possibly getting Nader, possibly Bush - and they could get that tightrope walk wrong. [endquote] Nader and Gore weren't clones, as you defined clones. Clone-Independence wouldn't avoid the lesser-of-2-evils favorite-burial problem. You said: (And if you think "hold a primary" is cheating because it occurs outside the voting booth, replace it with "then they vote for the candidate with a last name closest to the start of the alphabet". No action outside the voting booth required! [endquote] Wrong. Agreement on that solution would have to take place outside the voting booth. The problem doesn't have that easy a solution in Plurality, because getting agreement on that would be difficult. Sure, if voters knew what they were doing, then they could find a way to get good results, even in Plurality. In the 2012 presidential election here, I claim that the problem was solved when the GPUS announced their nomination. Now, for all progressives, Jill Stein is obviously the most winnable acceptable candidate. Plurality's u/a strategy is to vote for the most winnable acceptable candidate. Now it's obvious that that is Jill Stein. I urge every progressive U.S. voter to vote for Jill Stein. Voters should read the platforms. If you prefer the GPUS platform proposals to the known conduct of the Democrats and Republicans, then vote for Jill Stein in November. (Yes, Kristofer, I know that you don't vote in this country, and so you know that I was speaking to a broader "you" in that sentence.) You said: What's all this about strategy? I don't want to play manual DSV. [endquote] If you still think that TUC doesn't have strategy-need, then nothing I say will help, and it's time to just agree to disagree. You continued: Isn't then a method with complex strategy a *benefit?* If you have to be Kasparov to effectively strategize [endquote] I didn't say that even Kasparov would know what to do in TUC, even in a u/a election. You continued: , and strategy's otherwise a minefield, not a whole lot of people will. [endquote] Oh of course they will. People guess about their best strategy. You continued: Another barrier to being strategic means increased chance of honesty. [endquote] Incorrect. Difficult strategy just means more guessing. Ok, I take that back: It really means that people will take the tv's word for it regarding how they should vote. The more people don't know what to do, the more they'll obey their tv. Yes, I understand that the belief that difficult or unknown strategy will make people rank sincerely is the creed of TUC advocates. We've expressed our comments on that matter, and I suggest that it's time to agree to disagree. I'd said: > About Reversal-Symmetry: > > You seem to be speaking of it as applying only to ranking methods. > That's ok for right now. Nope. I have never claimed that Range fails reversal symmetry. But Range isn't the subject of discussion. ICT is. [endquote] Well, I'd also asked TUC advocates to explain what TUC advantages are important enough to outweigh TUC's considerable disadvantages in comparison to Approval and Score (formerly known as "Range"). . It's [Reversal Symmetry] an agrees-with-itself criterion. If a method agrees that a candidate is its choice in an election for best as well as its choice in an election for worst... [endquote] Whoa. You're assuming without justification that reversing the rankings amounts to an election for worst. But thanks for clarifying how you justify Reversal Symmetry. You said: Appealing to the internal weights of the method - saying "because method X favors this particular category in the ballot, it doesn't matter" - is like IRV advocates claiming that through its elimination logic, it is obviously fair because it simulates an actual exhaustive runoff, and so criterion compliance doesn't matter either. [endquote] I've been saying for some time now, that it's necessary to justify the criteria that we cite. And of course, it would be very easy for me to use the same kind of argument against Consistency. Something like... "Obviously, in any positional method, combining two ballot sets where X wins must lead to a ballot set where X wins. ... It is well known that only positional systems can pass Consistency ... Advocates or users of this criterion, then, seem to be saying that all methods should be positional methods .. Why?" [endquote] Wrong. The difference is that the Consistency Criterion is justified by the fact that a method that fails it is thereby contradicting itself. I understand that you think that Reversal Symmetry failure, too, shows a contradiction. We've both had our say on that matter. You said: Does that mean if you disregard reversal symmetry, you also have to disregard consistency? [endquote] No, because I don't see the "contradiction" that you see in Reversal Symmetry failure. But I'm willing to just accept that you think there is one, and leave it at that. I'd said: > Users of Reversal Symmetry don't agree. But they can't legitimately > impose their personal preferences as a requirement for all methods. You replied: Nor can advocates of FBC legitimately impose their personal preferences in such a manner. [endquote] Fair enough. But the optimality of favorite burial in TUC, under the assumptions known to be believed by the American voting public (with considerable help from their tv) isn't a matter of my personal opinion. It's a simple fact. Sure, maybe you're ok with favorite-burial. Or maybe you fervently and unshakably believe the TUC creed that people will rank sincerely in TUC. Fine. Let's just agree to disagree. Mike Ossipoff ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
