On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Juho Laatu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25.6.2013, at 1.06, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > > > Remember that criterion compliances are absolute. So a method may fail a > criterion yet be perfectly acceptable in real elections. > > I just want to support this viewpoint. It is not essential how many > criteria a mehod violates. It is more important how bad those violations > are, i.e. if the method likely have serious problems or not. The best > method might well be a method that violates multiple criteria, but manages > to spread the (unavoidable) problems evenly so that all of them stay > insignificant. > Hmmm. I think I would like to be more cautious. I think there are different levels of worries: - Having a criterion fail often in practice is worse than having it fail more rarely in practice. - Having a criterion fail rarely in practice is worse than having it fail more hypothetically (than actually). - Having a criterion fail hypothetically is worse than not having it fail at all Now there are some criteria that aren't important to me at all, that I do not value what the try to protect - and those I factor out. But in general, I am going to try to be very aware of the nature and prevalence of the unpleasant results that violating criteria can bring. In other words, until a particular system's violation of a criteria is clearly demonstrated to me to be insignificant, I shall instead adopt a worst case approach. ;) -Benn
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
