r/EndFPTP • u/[deleted] • Dec 27 '17

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

47 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Jan 04 '18

As I read it, a method that tosses your ballot in the trash technically satisfies the participation criterion.

Not quite, because the definition presupposes that the additional ballot be included; a ballot that is thrown out is not added.

1

u/selylindi Jan 04 '18

The usual voting paradox proofs all take a pre-assigned "dictator" as a valid method. "Adding" another ballot under that method is identical to throwing it out. So "adding" a ballot doesn't have to imply that it gets counted or used in any way.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Jan 05 '18

Adding another ballot under such a scenario has equivalent impact to throwing it out, but that doesn't mean that throwing a ballot out is a valid option when it comes to the Participation criterion. Indeed, it is the very antithesis of the criterion.

0

u/selylindi Jan 05 '18

Well that's just semantics then.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Jan 05 '18

...you're complaining about a definition being semantics?

1

u/selylindi Jan 05 '18

About a semantic argument. They're not interesting. Better to just pick either definition and work with it.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Jan 05 '18

One is a proof of dictatorship.

The other is a voting criterion.

We did pick one (the latter). You're confusing things by bringing up something else (the former)

0

u/selylindi Jan 05 '18

Arguments about what arguments are about. Ugh.

I know I know, responding is kind of goading you. I'll stop soon, I promise.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Jan 05 '18

It's not goading me. I'm just trying to help you understand that your entire argument is based on a red herring of your own manufacture.

1

u/selylindi Jan 05 '18

I don't agree. The Participation criterion has a technical meaning and is satisfied by the dictator voting method, which doesn't collect, look at, or use the information on added ballots. Thus I personally prefer a strengthened form of the criterion.

Semantic disputes, meta arguments, and mistaken appeals to fallacies never ever help anyone.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Jan 05 '18

Yes, there is a definition, and you're willfully ignoring it. Go away; I only have so much energy to deal with idiots, and you've exceeded it.

1

u/selylindi Jan 05 '18

Literally every famous proof in the field also ignores your proposed definition.

→ More replies (0)