[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Simple reasoning: "ranking all the options the same" has the same effect as 
> "not voting at all" WRT the outcome of the vote. Absent reasons to the 
> contrary, it therefore should also be considered equivalent WRT the 
> Monotonicity Criterion, or violation thereof, or lack thereof.

for purposes of argument, i will accept that as true.

let us review the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) again:

= http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC
= 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.

for the purposes of this discussion, i take the Statement of Criterion's
use of candidate to be equivalent in concept to the Debian voting
mechinism's concept of option.

Scenario: R=10; two options + default option

Original vote:


Condorcet: A wins
Proposed: D wins
Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out.

one more person votes:


Classic: A wins
Proposed: B wins
Amended: A wins

you are saying that one voter effectively changed his vote to where B
was raised with respect to the other options. to fail the MC, before B
would have had to win, and now B would have to lose. before, B did not
win. so that fact that B loses now has _NO EFFECT_ with respect to MC.

no case, either Condorcet, Proposed, or Amended fails the MC. please
provide a real example where the Amended proposition fails MC before
making this accusation again.

if you are going to claim that nullifying a vote is identicle to all
options losing, then i am afraid we have an un-breachable conflict.


Reply to: