Powered by Cricket Wireless------ Original message------From: Michael OssipoffDate: Fri, May 31, 2024 07:54To: robert bristow-johnson;Cc: EM list;Subject:Re: [EM] Strategy-free criterionOn Thu, May 30, 2024 at 08:00 robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > On 05/29/2024 5:15 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves <closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm trying to work out how the strategy-free criterion actually relates to strategy, because it just sounds like it means the majority-Condorcet criterion ("if a candidate majority-beats every other, they have to win if everyone is honest"). @Michael Ossipoff ? "My system is only intended for honest men." - Jean-Charles, chevalier de Borda We vote by secret ballot.  We have the right to vote for whomever we choose for whatever reasons we choose.  There is no way to stop people from voting in a manner that is nefarious.  Like for bigoted or for dishonest reasons. The voting system must not be dependent on voters voting honestly.  We are partisans, not judges.  No voter can be prevented from voting insincerely, but we can try to disincentivize that.  We should not assume, or require in advance, that voters vote sincerely for the election method to work correctly.  We should expect them to vote in a manner that they rationally believe is in their best political interest.That’s why CW,Plurality is naive. Offensive strategy will make it no better than IRV. Really just expensive Plurality?No. 2 elections (0.4%), it would do better.  Expense is about the same after voter education.

Replying below: On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 05:26 robert bristow-johnson < rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > > > *Powered by Cricket Wireless* > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Michael Ossipoff > *Date: *Fri, May 31, 2024 07:54 > *To: *robert bristow-johnson; > *Cc: *EM list; > *Subject:*Re: [EM] Strategy-free criterion > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 08:00 robert bristow-johnson < > rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 05/29/2024 5:15 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves < >> closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I'm trying to work out how the strategy-free criterion actually relates >> to strategy, because it just sounds like it means the majority-Condorcet >> criterion ("if a candidate majority-beats every other, they have to win if >> everyone is honest"). @Michael Ossipoff ? >> >> >> "My system is only intended for honest men." - Jean-Charles, chevalier de >> Borda >> >> We vote by secret ballot. We have the right to vote for whomever we >> choose for whatever reasons we choose. There is no way to stop people from >> voting in a manner that is nefarious. Like for bigoted or for dishonest >> reasons. >> >> The voting system must not be dependent on voters voting honestly. We >> are partisans, not judges. No voter can be prevented from voting >> insincerely, but we can try to disincentivize that. We should not assume, >> or require in advance, that voters vote sincerely for the election method >> to work correctly. We should expect them to vote in a manner that they >> rationally believe is in their best political interest. >> > > That’s why CW,Plurality is naive. Offensive strategy will make it no > better than IRV. Really just expensive Plurality? > > No. 2 elections (0.4%), it would do better. > No idea what that means. > Expense is about the same after voter education. > Implementation of Condorcet would be considerably more expensive than Approval. > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >

Robert, have you ever heard of the Lucas critique? On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:26 AM robert bristow-johnson < rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > > > *Powered by Cricket Wireless* > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Michael Ossipoff > *Date: *Fri, May 31, 2024 07:54 > *To: *robert bristow-johnson; > *Cc: *EM list; > *Subject:*Re: [EM] Strategy-free criterion > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 08:00 robert bristow-johnson < > rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 05/29/2024 5:15 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves < >> closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I'm trying to work out how the strategy-free criterion actually relates >> to strategy, because it just sounds like it means the majority-Condorcet >> criterion ("if a candidate majority-beats every other, they have to win if >> everyone is honest"). @Michael Ossipoff ? >> >> >> "My system is only intended for honest men." - Jean-Charles, chevalier de >> Borda >> >> We vote by secret ballot. We have the right to vote for whomever we >> choose for whatever reasons we choose. There is no way to stop people from >> voting in a manner that is nefarious. Like for bigoted or for dishonest >> reasons. >> >> The voting system must not be dependent on voters voting honestly. We >> are partisans, not judges. No voter can be prevented from voting >> insincerely, but we can try to disincentivize that. We should not assume, >> or require in advance, that voters vote sincerely for the election method >> to work correctly. We should expect them to vote in a manner that they >> rationally believe is in their best political interest. >> > > That’s why CW,Plurality is naive. Offensive strategy will make it no > better than IRV. Really just expensive Plurality? > > No. 2 elections (0.4%), it would do better. Expense is about the same > after voter education. > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >