Markus said:
I said that criteria should be defined on the _cast_ preferences and not on the _sincere_ preferences.
I didn't say that criteria shouldn't be defined on preferences at all.
I reply:
A vote isnīt a preference. A vote might be based on a preference, though often it is not. If a vote is a cast preference, and someone who prefers Nader to Kerry votes Kerry over Nader, is that a preference, even though itīs opposite to the voterīs preference? You say it is a cast preference but not a sincere preference? Thereīs no such thing as an insincere preference. An insincere statement about preference is understood by all to mean a statement that is contrary to oneīs preference.
When you vote in accord with your preference, that preference could then be called a voted preference. Since you could be said to have "cast" that preference when you voted, you could call that preference a "cast preference". But the vote isnīt the cast preference; the vote is what was done that was based on the preference. The preference itself could be called a voted preference, or maybe even a cast preference, because you cast a vote thatīs in accord with that preference.
But whether or not you agree with that usual meaning for preference, Iīm telling you now, that when I say "preference", I donīt refer to a vote.
If you want to call a vote a cast preference, then Iīll translate cast preference to vote when you say it. No problem. And you need to understand that when I say preference, I donīt mean vote.
We can use different language if youīre willing to accept that your own usage isnīt followed by everyone else.
You wrote (27 Feb 2005):
You still haven't said why you think that my criteria are unclear.
I would say that WDSC, SDSC, and FBC are rather _undefined_ than _unclear_.
I reply:
If theyīre undefined, then post an example of a situation in which their result is undeterminable.
Because, if their result is always determinable, if any method, in any situation, can be shown to pass or shown to fail, then thatīs a well-defined criterion.
Anyway, when making the claim that a critrerion is undefined, the burden is on you to tell specifically why you think that itīs undefined. You havenīt done that.
Iīd said:
You wrote (27 Feb 2005):
For instance, I demonstrated why Approval passes WDSC, and why margins Condorcet fails WDSC. When compliances and noncompliances can be clearly and undeniably demonstrated, then that's the only kind of clarity that a criterion really needs. Can you name a plausible situation in which it would be difficult to say whether or not a method meets one of my criteria.
Then please demonstrate whether my method (aka Schwartz sequential dropping, cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping, beatpath method, beatpath winner, Schulze method) satisfies FBC.
I reply:
Gladly. Iīll answer that question when I get to it. As I said, somone sent to me an example in which Condorcet failed FBC. Iīll post such an example, when I get to it. Or if, in every example that I check, BeatpathWinner can be shown to not fail, Iīll report that too.
Note that that isnīt a refusal to answer the question.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
