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

(→Complying Methods) |
(→Complying Methods) |
||

Line 13: | Line 13: | ||

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) | 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) |

## Revision as of 09:09, 16 June 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

## Complying Methods

The article says:

**Complies**: Approval voting, Cardinal Ratings, Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping**Fails**: Median Ratings, methods electing from the CDTT set

Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping 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)