Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "Hard to understand"? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
> > before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
> > can't win. How is this "hard to understand"?
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> The thing which is hard to understand, is the following.
> Dropping the option which nobody likes can change the
> winner among the "interesting" options.
> This is explained in detail at
> There you will find an example, where voting in favor of an option B
> will make this option loose, because of the quorum interferes.
I'm going to focus only on your claim that this page shows an example
of the violation of monotonicity by Manoj's proposal.
Monotonicity (http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC) requires
"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."
But, on your page, I don't see any examples of "voting a candidate higher
with the relative order or rating of other candidates unchanged".
Instead, I see one example of an introduced vote where B, C and A
are all changed with respect to the default option.