Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

[Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com>]

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:10:56AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> = 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.

You are arguing, I imagine, that [strictly speaking], "casting a vote
which prefers option A over all other options" when compared to "not
casting a ballot at all" is not an example of "voting the candidate
higher"?

If not, I'm not sure how what you're asking relates to the monotonicity
criterion.

However, if that is what you are arguing, I suppose I could see some
justification for defining some different criterion to deal with the
case of "I voted for X so X lost, where if I hadn't X would have won".
However, I would say that this criterion is probably even more fundamental
than MC.

-- 
Raul