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

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



Hello,

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 08:45:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.

Well, maybe not strictly Monotonicity, but it is an example where a
vote in favour of B causes B to loose.  This is a problem.  And the
problem is caused by the per-option quorum.

I hope this helps,
Jochen
-- 
                                         Omm
                                      (0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html

Attachment: pgp629ED2IcQN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: