In my alternative definition of voting x over y, in the first sentence, I
accidentally wrote
"is" when I meant "if". Here is the posting written correctly:
Alternative definition of voting x over y:
You're voting x over y if switching the names of x and y on your ballot could
change the winner from x to y, but
could not change the winner from y to x.
[end of alternative definition of voting x over y]
This avoids the "probably" or the phrase "consistent with more configurations
of other voters' ballots". It's simpler and
neater. Either definition would do.
Of course by this #2 definition, in IRV you never really know whether you're
voting x over y or y over x.
No problem.
My criteria still apply to IRV. A criterion-failure-example-writer can always
make up a monotonic example for hir
failure example.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
