Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Scenario B:
> Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been
> 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am
> opposed to the option.
> At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
> with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
> not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
> option -- the option shall win!!
> This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received,
and (b) your knowledge at the time of your vote of how many votes have
been received and what they are?
> Statement of Criterion
> 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.
> This is really bad.
I think it is nonsensical that the order in which the votes are received
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>