# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Blank Ballot Criterion"

(→Complying Methods) |
|||

(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||

Line 2: | Line 2: | ||

No, I don't understand the name either. -KVenzke | No, I don't understand the name either. -KVenzke | ||

+ | |||

+ | Russ has just re-proposed this criterion on the mailing list as the "Blank Ballot Criterion". IMHO, that's a more reasonable name. [[User:DanBishop|DanBishop]] 13:16, 25 Jun 2005 (PDT) | ||

== Complying Methods == | == Complying Methods == | ||

Line 7: | Line 9: | ||

The article says: | The article says: | ||

− | :*'''Complies''': [[Approval voting]], [[Cardinal Ratings]], [[Schulze method| | + | :*'''Complies''': [[Approval voting]], [[Cardinal Ratings]], [[Schulze method|Schulze]] |

:*'''Fails''': [[Median Ratings]], methods electing from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]] | :*'''Fails''': [[Median Ratings]], methods electing from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]] | ||

− | [[Schulze method| | + | [[Schulze method|Schulze]] always chooses from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]]. Therefore, the above list cannot be correct. [[User:MarkusSchulze|MarkusSchulze]] 15:49, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT) |

+ | |||

+ | Hmm... The problem is that "methods electing from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]]" is not specific enough. I'm responsible for that wording, of course. If you add, and count, ballots ranking all candidates equal, then this can delete CDTT wins (i.e. majority-strength wins). So the result can change in a method which explicitly finds the CDTT set. Any ideas on how to reword this? [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 16:22, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT) | ||

+ | |||

+ | Well, I consider election methods to be "black boxes". That means: To determine whether a given election method satisfies a given criterion, you don't need to know the used algorithm, you only need to know which candidate wins in each profile. Therefore, whether a given method satisfies a given criterion must not depend on how you describe this method. [[User:MarkusSchulze|MarkusSchulze]] 10:09, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT) | ||

+ | |||

+ | Ok, I'll change it. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT) | ||

+ | |||

+ | This criterion has the problem that any method can (and in my opinion should) easily dodge it by simply including a rule that "blank ballots" aren't counted. The way Woodall defines his CDTT does this, so therefore | ||

+ | CDTT,IRV does not fail this criterion. [Chris Benham] [[User:144.138.152.168|144.138.152.168]] 23:36, 11 Jul 2005 (PDT) |

## Latest revision as of 18:46, 3 December 2005

I don't like calling things "spoiled" when it is absolutely not clear that the thing is indeed spoiled in the common sense... [Heitzig-j]

No, I don't understand the name either. -KVenzke

Russ has just re-proposed this criterion on the mailing list as the "Blank Ballot Criterion". IMHO, that's a more reasonable name. DanBishop 13:16, 25 Jun 2005 (PDT)

## Complying Methods

The article says:

**Complies**: Approval voting, Cardinal Ratings, Schulze**Fails**: Median Ratings, methods electing from the CDTT set

Schulze always chooses from the CDTT set. Therefore, the above list cannot be correct. MarkusSchulze 15:49, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Hmm... The problem is that "methods electing from the CDTT set" is not specific enough. I'm responsible for that wording, of course. If you add, and count, ballots ranking all candidates equal, then this can delete CDTT wins (i.e. majority-strength wins). So the result can change in a method which explicitly finds the CDTT set. Any ideas on how to reword this? Kevin Venzke 16:22, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Well, I consider election methods to be "black boxes". That means: To determine whether a given election method satisfies a given criterion, you don't need to know the used algorithm, you only need to know which candidate wins in each profile. Therefore, whether a given method satisfies a given criterion must not depend on how you describe this method. MarkusSchulze 10:09, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Ok, I'll change it. Kevin Venzke 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)

This criterion has the problem that any method can (and in my opinion should) easily dodge it by simply including a rule that "blank ballots" aren't counted. The way Woodall defines his CDTT does this, so therefore CDTT,IRV does not fail this criterion. [Chris Benham] 144.138.152.168 23:36, 11 Jul 2005 (PDT)