Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Expressed in terms of scenario: A vs B, quorum 20
> > >
> > > Case 1:
> > >
> > > 15 ABD
> > > D wins
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:30:29PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > 15<R. under my amendment, there is no vote.
>
> That's what I said, though perhaps too tersely. D is the
> default option. "D wins" means the election defaults.
>
> > > Case 2:
> > > 15 ABD
> > > 8 BDA
> > > A wins
> > >
> > > Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win.
> >
> > these are new votes, not re-ordered existing votes. this does not fail
> > the Monotonicity Criterion.
>
> You do not understand the Monotonicity Criterion.
= http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC
=
= Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
= Statement of Criterion
= With the relative order or rating of the other candidates
= unchanged, voting a candidate higher should never cause the
= candidate to lose, nor should voting a candidate lower ever cause
= the candidate to win.
please show how either
1) changing the order of an existing vote, under my amendment, causes
the winner to change in accordance with the MC as described above. (ie:
moving an option lower causes the option to WIN, or moving an option
lower causes the option to LOSE)
-or-
2) how casting a new vote is equivalent, with respect to the MC, to
changing the order of an already existing vote, and how discarding the
entire process is equivalent to causing an option to win or lose.
-john
Reply to: