Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > Simple reasoning: "ranking all the options the same" has the same effect as > "not voting at all" WRT the outcome of the vote. Absent reasons to the > contrary, it therefore should also be considered equivalent WRT the > Monotonicity Criterion, or violation thereof, or lack thereof.
for purposes of argument, i will accept that as true. let us review the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) again: = http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC = = With the relative order or rating of the other candidates unchanged, = voting a candidate higher should never cause the candidate to lose, = nor should voting a candidate lower ever cause the candidate to win. for the purposes of this discussion, i take the Statement of Criterion's use of candidate to be equivalent in concept to the Debian voting mechinism's concept of option. Scenario: R=10; two options + default option Original vote: 9 ABD Condorcet: A wins Proposed: D wins Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out. one more person votes: 9 ABD 1 BDA Classic: A wins Proposed: B wins Amended: A wins you are saying that one voter effectively changed his vote to where B was raised with respect to the other options. to fail the MC, before B would have had to win, and now B would have to lose. before, B did not win. so that fact that B loses now has _NO EFFECT_ with respect to MC. no case, either Condorcet, Proposed, or Amended fails the MC. please provide a real example where the Amended proposition fails MC before making this accusation again. if you are going to claim that nullifying a vote is identicle to all options losing, then i am afraid we have an un-breachable conflict. -john
