You said:
Could you please show proof that WV (RP/Beatpath/River) passes Consistency and CWP does not?
I reply:
Sorry, no I can't prove that because it isn't true. WV and Cardinal Pairwise both fail Participation and Consistency. In fact few if any rank methods other than Borda meet those criteria. In my posting I repeatedly spoke of that as a problem of the rank methods, except for Borda. But Borda has its own criterion-failure that Plurality doesn't have: Majority Favorite.
My criticism was of all rank methods.
Sure I like wv best, and I consider SFC & GSFC to be valuable. But do you think that we should be proposing methods that can do worse than Plurality in some ways? How will it look for us, and for single-winner reform, if they fail in a way that Plurality can't fail, and if it's a failure that really looks bad?
There are other criteria that Plurality & CR pass, but the rank methods fail, such as the simple votes-only version of Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion (IIAC):
Deleting a losing candidate from the ballots, and then recounting those ballots, should never change who wins.
[end of simple votes-only IIAC definition]
Though my favorite criteria aren't votes-only, I've never opposed all the votes-only criteria. I've often mentioned votes-only IIAC, and pointed out that Approval meets it. And that, if we accept that as IIAC, then Approval meets all of Arrow's results criteria, at least as I've seen them written.
And I've never disparaged Majority Favorite or Participation, which are votes-only criteria.
Can you promise that there won't be a big embarrassment when a rank method fails that IIAC, or Participation or Consistency, in a big way?
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
