daniel radetsky Sent: 11 January 2008 03:01
On Jan 10, 2008 2:05 AM, James Gilmour
to put correct this defect we have no option but to sacrifice
something else, e.g. later no harm.
I'm not sure later-no-harm is a good thing in the first place.
Ok, so that's your opinion. As I have
---
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: 01.01.08 22:15:55
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [Election-Methods] Why monotonicity? (was: Smith + mono-add-top?)
Diego Santos wrote:
-snip-
This method meets
Jobst had written:
Also, it seems difficult to sell a method when you must admit that
advancing an option X may actually reduce X's winning probability...
Steve replied:
That doesn't seem to be a problem for the Instant Runoff campaign. ;-)
Do you recall an example where it was
Good discussion. In general I think a strict criterion fulfillment
based evaluation of the election methods is not sufficient.
Monotonicity can be seen as a property that is always positive but
that need not necessarily be always met. It is enough if in the given
environment voters need
Diego Santos wrote:
-snip-
This method meets mono-add-top and
-snip-
Why care about monotonicity criteria, apart from the fact that many
people have written about them? Aren't they just aesthetically pleasing
consistency criteria, like the Reinforcement criterion
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Election-Methods] Why monotonicity? (was: Smith + mono-add-top?)
Diego Santos wrote:
-snip-
This method meets mono-add-top and
-snip-
Why care about monotonicity criteria, apart from the fact that many
people have written about them
