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

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

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:49:04AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> 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.

But it's not the vote in favor of *B* that causes B to lose, it's the
vote in favor of *E* that causes B to lose.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpmPB1on6XzU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: