electowiki

Favorite betrayal criterion: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Favorite betrayal criterion (view source)

Revision as of 20:22, 7 November 2012

1,003 bytes removed ,  11 years ago
no edit summary
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1:
The '''Favorite Betrayal criterion''' is a criterion for evaluating [[voting system]]s.
 
Here is the FBC definition currently advocated and used by the main advocate of FBC (that would be me):
 
 
Line 11 ⟶ 9:
The voting system must allow the voter to vote at top as many candidates as s/he wishes.
 
If nothe onewinner winsis a candidate who is not top-voted by you, then, if you movemoving an additional candidate to top, on your ballot, that shouldn't causechange someonethe winner to wina candidate who is not then top-voted by you.
 
 
'''Supplementary definition:'''
Line 21 ⟶ 18:
----
 
The definiton written below is the one that IFBC's initial propponent had originally written and used. IIts likedproblem it,was butthat it led to the question of "What if the way of voting that optimizes your outcome without favorite-burial is some complicated, difficult-to-find strategy?". That question led me to mya better definition, written above on this page. Some time ago, someone else, too, had written itthat definition, and a link to it is given at the bottom of this page, under a different name (Sincere Favorite Criterion).▼
 
The above part of this page was added by Michael Ossipoff
The above-stated wording is chosen to allow for ties, (to presumably be later solved randomly), so that the definition will be useful regardless of whether all of the tie candidates are called "winners", or only the one winner of the tiebreaker is called "winner". In other words, the above definition is independent on which of those ways "win" and "winner" are defined.
 
But if, in the event of a tie, "winner" refers only to the one one candidate who wins after the random tiebreaker has been applied to the tie, then...
 
'''a somewhat more natural and intuitive sounding definition can be written:'''
 
If the winner is a candidate whom you've top-voted, then, if you move an additional candidate to top, the winner should still be a candidate top-voted by you.
 
[end of FBC definition dependent on a particular definition of "winner"]
 
I prefer the first of those two definitions, because it isn't dependent on how "winner" or "win" is defined.
The first of the above two definitions is my definition of FBC.
 
▲The definiton written below is the one that I had originally written and used. I liked it, but it led to the question of "What if the way of voting that optimizes your outcome without favorite-burial is some complicated, difficult-to-find strategy?". That question led me to my better definition, written above on this page. Some time ago, someone else, too, had written it, and a link to it is given at the bottom of this page, under a different name.
 
Michael Ossipoff
 
==Earlier Definition==
Line 45 ⟶ 28:
A voter optimizes the outcome (from his/her own perspective) if his vote causes the election of the best possible candidate that can be elected, based on his own preferences, given all the votes cast by other voters.
 
'''Earlier FBC definition:'''
 
<em>For any voter who has a unique favorite, there should be no possible set of votes cast by the other voters such that the voter can optimize the outcome (from his own perspective) only by voting someone over his favorite.</em>
Line 58 ⟶ 41:
 
Election methods that meet this criterion provide no incentive for voters to betray their favorite candidate by voting another candidate over him or her.
 
 
An interpretation of this criterion applied to votes as cast is the [[Sincere Favorite criterion]].
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "https://electowiki.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/871"