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