Russ said:
Mike mentioned Nash equilibrium to me a year or two ago. I thought it was interesting, and we agreed to put some material about it on the website. For whatever reason, the material never came.
I reply:
I didn't have time, Russ. I had other things to do.
Russ continues:
Let me also mention that I had suggested to Mike way back that we provide proofs for his criteria such as SFC, GSFC, and others.
I reply:
What does it mean to "prove" a criterion? :-)
One defines a criterion. Then one might prove one or methods' compliance or noncompliance with it.
Is Russ trying to say that never proved methods' compliance or noncompliance with the criteria?
Actually I sent those demonstrations to Russ more than once. First when he firsts asked to have the criteria at his website. And again later when the demonstrations were requested by someone else.
The statements that I often make here about compliance and noncompliance with my criteria have been verified here on EM, and in e-mail to Russ several times.
Russ continued:
Several readers had requested them. He never sent me any proofs or explanations.
I reply:
No Russ, demonstrations of the complainace and noncompliance claims that I make were sent to you more than once.
Russ continued:
That leads me to wonder if Mike can really prove any or all of his criteria.
I reply:
Maybe Russ will tell us what he means by "prove...criteria".
Russ continues:
He may have posted proofs here on EM, but if he did I don't understand why he didn't send them to me for the website.
I reply:
I did, more than once.
I emphasize that the compliance and noncompliance demonstrations were posted to EM a number of times too. But they'll be re-posted upon request.
Russ continued:
In any case, I must admit that I was naive when I started the website with Mike. I had assumed that his criteria were more or less widely accepted by the EM community, but only later did I realize that they may be a "Mike-only" sort of deal.
I reply:
No one on EM has shown interest in my criteria, with a few exceptions. Steve Eppley liked the criteria and has written similiar ones. The other exception is that FBC has been pretty much accepted on EM, though sometimes in slightly different versions.
But, as regards SARC, SFC, GSFC, WDSC, SDSC, Nonfalsifyingness, and Expressiveness, if you, Russ, need to follow the majority, then you won't value those criteria either, and that's ok.
But it goes without saying, that now that I've withdrawn permission for you to have my articles or anything originating from me at your website, you instantly become an opponent of whatever is from me, and that's ok too.
Aren't you going to now oppose wv Condorcet too? Because, I must warn you, Russ, I was its initial proponent. Well, Norm posted quotes suggesting that wv was what Condorcet was proposing. Markus didn't accept that interpretation of that quote. If you don't accept it, then it was I who introduced wv Condorcet. If you do accept it, then I'm only its first proponent in modern times. But either way, Russ, the meaning for you is obvious: You have to become an opponent of wv Condorcet. Will you become a margins advocate? Who knows or cares.
Russ continues:
Perhaps someone here can help me understand the situation. Are Mike's criteria such as SFC, GSFC, SDSC, WDSC, and FBC "widely" recognizedI reply:
I'll help you on that. FBC is widely accepted on EM, but the others aren't widely recognized. So far as I know, none, not even FBC, is mentioned away from EM, except that those criteria are at the website that now has my criteria and articles:
http://www.bartnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html
Russ continues:
, or do they live only in Mike's mind?
I reply:
In what sense does Russ believe that criteria live? Rhetorical question. SFC, GSFC, WDSC, SDSC, SARC, Nonfalsification, and Expressiveness aren't used by anyone but me, though Steve uses criteria similar to GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC.
Well, as I've repeatedly said, the important thing to me is that I've made information available. What, if anything, is done with it by someone else isn't my department. All that matters to me, in regards to criteria and voting systems, is that I've done my part.
Russ continues:
Finally, a little "friendly" advice to Mike. He probably won't take it
I reply:
Correct.
Russ continues:
but the loss will only be his.
I reply:
What loss? I don't get royalties when my criteria are used. Take them or leave them. I offer them, but I don't go out of my way to promote them.
Russ continues:
I suggest that he formally document his criteria in one or more technical papers and submit them to peer-reviewed journals or conferences.
I reply:
Why?? I've read enough of what is written by voting system academics to know that they aren't interested in getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem. Getting rid of that problem is the purpose of my criteria. It could be worded more generally, as the goal of minimizing need for defensivse strategy, as I've defined it on EM. Minimizing the range of situations in which that strategy is needed (SFC & GSFC describe conditions under which certain voters won't need defensive strategy, with a complyilng method), or the drasticness of taht strategy when it is needed.
The academics and I simply have different purposes, different goals. Without making any judgement about which goals are better, that means that there would be no point in my communicating with the academics.
Though it would sound good to say that I don't criticize the academics for their different goals, I can't make that claim. Most voting system academics are completely out of touch with the concerns and interest of voters. But they're in touch with eachother's concerns.
I often say that there's no objective way to choose among standards, that standards are a subjective, individual relativist matter. Well, not quite.
I suggest that when violation of a standard is causing a big problem for voters, when it's causing them to drastically falsify what they want, then that standard-violation has seriously undermined democracy. Democracy becomes a joke when millions of voters are afraid to support their favorite, and feel that they must vote, over everyone else, someone whom they don't really like. When a violation of a standard is causing that, and therefore is causing the serious resulting material problems, then I suggest that that standard matters, in an objective sense.
I abbreviate "lesser-of-2-evils" as LO2E. Some here have said that they don't think that LO2E is important, but I disagree, for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph.
Now, if we agree that LO2E, or the more generally-stated goal of minimizing defensive strategy need, is important, the question then becomes: Do some other criteria measure for that goal better than my criteria do? There are a few other criteria that addess that goal to some degree:
Condorcet's Criterion;
But CC is too lenient. One can do better; one can ask for more. By the way, Nonfalsiflyingness and Expressiveness can be regarded as Nash equilibrium extensions of CC, strategic extensions of CC.
When ordinary CC is worded so that it makes sense, it stipulates sincere votinig by everyone, and that isn't so realistic. My criteria not only account for strategic voting, but they're _about_ strategic voting and the goal of minimizing need for it.
Mutual Majority Criterion (MMC);
First proposed by Bruce Anderson, so far as I'm aware. Maybe later appropriated by Woodall.
MMC is desirable, but it's a fortuitous special-case criterion, about the fortuitous special case known as a mutual majority.
James Co-operation/Defection test;
I call it the Non-Defection-Proneness Criterion or the Majority Co-operation Criterion (MCC).
I use MCC and MMC both. I've told why I don't consider MCC failure, defection-pronenss, to be a serious problem, but it still is a problem and it's preferable to avoid it.
So there are other criteria that relate to strategy-need, and I use some of them, but they aren't enough.
I've often said that I welcome other criteria that measure for getting rid of LO2E. I don't say that mine are the only ones possible.
Russ said:
You can't build a "career" on an email list.
I reply:
I'm not trying to build a career.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
