Talk:Participation criterion: Difference between revisions

Line 5:

:: Then that criterion is not a variant of Participation. Participation says "if you show up and cast a ballot that ranks X over Y, then that shouldn't change the winner from X to Y". A bullet vote for X ranks X above everybody else, so there's only a Participation violation if the outcome changes from X to someone who isn't X. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 13:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

:: Thinking about it a bit more, it seems your criterion is closer to "If a voter shows up and equal-ranks a set S of candidates at the bottom, then that shouldn't change the outcome from someone in S to someone else in S". It's a sort of "reverse no favorite betrayal". [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 13:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

::: I came up with this variation because I wanted to point out that not only do many voting reforms fail Favorite Betrayal, just like FPTP, but they fail Participation even in the case where you limit your expressiveness to an FPTP-style vote, unlike FPTP. So with such methods, a plausible argument could be made that they're actually worse than FPTP (though I'm not saying that is actually true). Also, the thinking you just did is basically [[Irrelevance of Independent Ballots]], which has been discussed at forum.electionscience.org as IIB. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)