> > Sorry, but it isn't my responsibility to advocate methods using
> > criteria that are important to other people, but not to me.
>
>Does that mean e.g. that (since both methods meet monotonicity and
>violate your lesser-of-two-evils criteria) you consider plurality
>and Tideman(margins) to be equally good?
If those 2 methods differ in merit, it isn't enough to register
by any of the criteria that measure things that matter to me.
Whether there's some small difference in merit between Plurality
& Tideman(margins) is an issue that doesn't concern me. Maybe
there is a small difference, immeasurable by my standards. I don't
know.
Plurality meets Participation and Tideman(m)
fails Participation. Tideman(m) meets Condorcet, and Plurality
doeesn't, though it's questionable how much Condorcet means
by itself. I wouldn't want to try to guess whether there's
a merit difference between Plurality & Tideman(m). I'm not
interested in miniscule merit differences that can't be meaningfully
measured.
> > Then I hope you are out there advocating for the Condorcet
> > versions based on criteria that are important to _you_. I'm
> > sorry, but I ask more of a voting system than you do.
>
>Does that mean that if a given reader doesn't consider your
>lesser-of-two-evils concept to be important (and doesn't consider
>monotonicity to be important resp. already promotes an election
>method that meets monotonicity) then you see no reason why he
>should like one of those methods that are mentioned in your
>website at http://home.pacbell.net/paielli/voting?
Markus, if I fail to attract everyone who doesn't care about LO2E,
then all I'm losing is some stuffed-shirt, head-up-the-ass
academics. I never expected to get agreement or endorsement from
them anyway.
Anyway, even someone who doesn't care about LO2E might care about
majority rule. The majority defensive strategy criteria are about
that too. So, for that reason, the answer to your question is no:
Even if someone doesn't care about LO2E, they might care about
majority rule, and therefore they might agree with the majority
defensive strategy criteria, and they might like Approval &
Condorcet.
Or maybe you mean: Should someone like Condorcet's method if
all they care about is Condorcet's Criterion? If that's all they
care about, they won't know the difference between Condorcet &
Tideman(m) & Dodgson, etc.
Condorcet's criterion is too weak, offers too little.
Now, I'd like to clarify & summarize what I was saying before:
1. If you want to say I should write equivalent criteria that
don't mention anything about voters but how they vote, then
you need to:
a. Give a reason for that claim.
You say it would make my criteria more comparable to BGMC.
BGMC won't be comparable to anything till it has a definition.
When it does, we can compare them according to what methods
they pass & fail, and what explicit LO2E criteria BGMC
compliance guarantees compliance with. I now say that BGMC
doesn't confer any LO2E advantages that my criteria don't
confer. If it did, I'd be advocating BeatpathWinner.
Not that there's any need to justify criteria that mention
sincere preferences, but I've never heard of a definition of
the popular Condorcet Criterion that 1) doesn't pass Plurality;
& 2) doesn't arbitrarily say that Plurality or all nonrank
methods fail; & 3) refers to nothing about voters but their
votes.
b. Write a definition of Beatpath GMC that meets the 3
requirements that I listed in the previous paragraph. You've
never done so, even though you've been repeatedly asked to.
2. If you want to use Beatpath GMC, and if you don't want to drop
it, then you must define it. When I pointed out that, as
currently defined, Beatpath GMC passes Plurality, you vaguely
mentioned a way that you feel can fix that. That's a long way
from a definition. You'll agree, then, that Beatpath GMC
is undefined, doesn't have a definition. And, until it has a
definition, Beatpath GMC is a name without a criterion.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
