View source for Talk:Negative responsiveness

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
}}
{{refideas
| {{Cite book |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/handbook-of-computational-social-choice/8AF63E87F76A5FC974D5E73536C52BD6 |title=Handbook of Computational Social Choice |date=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-06043-2 |editor-last=Brandt |editor-first=Felix |location=Cambridge |doi=10.1017/cbo9781107446984 |editor-last2=Conitzer |editor-first2=Vincent |editor-last3=Endriss |editor-first3=Ulle |editor-last4=Lang |editor-first4=Jérôme |editor-last5=Procaccia |editor-first5=Ariel D. |url-access=subscription}} Available from https://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~haziz/comsoc.pdf or via [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/handbook-of-computational-social-choice/8AF63E87F76A5FC974D5E73536C52BD6 TWL] for that matter.
}}

{{old move|date=27 October 2024|from=Negative responsiveness paradox|destination=Negative responsiveness|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1256897768#Requested move 27 October 2024}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(90d)
| archive             = Talk:Negative responsiveness/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 125K
| archiveheader       = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 5
}}
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->

==Rights on the text==
From the page:

{{tqb|''Some parts of this article are derived from text at http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml''}}

Some other pages have stated this, and said "used by permission". Can someone confirm that this use is by permission?<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.158.203.77|217.158.203.77]] ([[User talk:217.158.203.77#top|talk]]) 21:14, 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)</small>

: I did not seek explicit permission (though I may get around to sending a thank-you email).  The linked page, at the very bottom, gives more than enough permission to re-distribute under the GFDL.  Indeed, the way that he phrased it there was no need to explicitly acknowledge his work, but I thought it would be good to do so, both to thank him, and because his site is a useful resource to link to.  [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 21:23 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

::Thanks! That's good news.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.158.203.77|217.158.203.77]] ([[User talk:217.158.203.77#top|talk]]) 21:26, 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)</small>

==Don't confuse Condorcet criterion and monotonicity criterion==
The comment that "several variants of the [[Condorcet method]] (including [[Schulze method|Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping]] and [[Maximize Affirmed Majorities]]) are monotonic" is misleading since there is no connection between the [[Condorcet method|Condorcet criterion]] and the [[Monotonicity criterion]]. If you only want to say that the [[Condorcet method|Condorcet criterion]] and the [[Monotonicity criterion]] are compatible, then it is sufficient to say that [[Schulze method|Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping]] and [[Maximize Affirmed Majorities]] are monotonic. -- [[User:MarkusSchulze|Markus Schulze]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)</small>

:Hmm, I don't think the para as it was asserts a connection between the Condorcet Criterion and MC. And though CSSD and MAM are different, they really are minor tweaks on the Condorcet Method and usually make the same decision, so it seems weird to write about them as if they were as different as Plurality and Borda.  Is there any wording which mentions that these two are both Condorcet methods that would be acceptable to you? &mdash; [[User:Ciphergoth2|ciphergoth]] 14:05, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

::[[User:Ciphergoth2|ciphergoth]] asked: "Is there any wording which mentions that these two are both Condorcet methods that would be acceptable to you?" No. The fact that [[Schulze method|CSSD]] and [[Maximize Affirmed Majorities|MAM]] satisfy the [[Monotonicity criterion]] must only be used to promote [[Schulze method|CSSD]] or [[Maximize Affirmed Majorities|MAM]]. But it must not be used to promote [[Condorcet method]]s in general or even a concrete [[Condorcet method]] that doesn't satisfy the [[Monotonicity criterion]]. -- [[User:MarkusSchulze|Markus Schulze]] 21 Nov 2004

:::As ciphergoth, I fail to see how the sentence you talk about promotes Condorcet methods in general.--[[User:Chealer|Chealer]] 03:36, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

==Old edit war==
I've reverted from a lot of edits by [[user:polytope]].  Polytope: you are wellcome to contribute to articles, but your material was really not appropriate, for at least the following reasons: 

1) Wikipedia has a strict [[wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] policy which your discussion of the CVD definitely did not fit under.  Please read that link for more information on how to construct NPOV pages.  

2) It was very technical and frankly incomprehensible to me.  You have to do a much better job of explaining your terms.

[[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]]

:Your decision is unfair, wrong, and unreasonable, so I intend to upload the page again, after at least 1/2 of a day or so. The spirit of fairness would be more present if I was the person editing the definitions. I expected details comments. Here are problems with your decision. My reasoning is more carefully done than yours. Note that the edit that you did is here: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Monotonicity_criterion&diff=0&oldid=1126285

:I assume you do not want to even read this, but do however wish to keep censoring with an indifference to how thoroughly an audience moves against you if publicity shows up. I find your decision to be unreasonable since it has been made without an obvious relationship to the facts or evidence. That is plain since except for the mention of the CVD, no other comment relates back to the text of the page. That refers to grounds #1 and #2. The decision to replace the page instead of editing it is found by me to be unreasonable in respect of ground #2 since it seems that you could have satisfied yourself by altering one or both of the words "[IRV is] promoted [in USA]" and "[the CVD] complains [about...]". Also you refused to provide reasoning by e-mail after I requested that. You had two grounds but the weights were missing so the significance of your failure to comprehend what I wrote is something that I now do not have. Any of my text could lucid and optimal though may misunderstand. You may refer to this for the theory of how to make decisions about me: <A HREF="http://www.ijs.co.nz/fairness-standards.htm"></A>. 

:Decisions should be accompanied with reasoning and reasoning is too inadequate to be present. I do very much suspect that you had an improper purpose for taking such a strong action over that article. I had not used a wikipedia before. I note that your initial friendliness fast became a lockout where I could not get fuller information about your reasoning. Your website is remarkable in carefully censoring out the idea of monontonicity (http://www.channel1.com/users/dkesh/green/voting/), yet it seems to aim to describe principles of preferential voting (and fails completely since none of those can be ported over to mathematics in my opinion). The fact censoring of censoring out that same anti-CVD topic is indicative of a consideration of an irrelevant factor (categorized under improper purpose). I requested (using private e-mail) a statement of the reasoning that was fuller and I never got any. Your argument was that I should write here at this page; that I now write to, and your grounds were "I don't read my e-mail very often." (you wrote on about 10-July-2003). That was a harassing decision. You intended to communicate only using private e-mail and you explained that since you receive and read your e-mail quite well (but a little slowly), then I must therefore avoid using e-mail (and use the wikipedia). That can not be followed and it is unreasonable. I was later? clear in stating that e-mail should be used and the wikipedia must not be. Why didn't you identify your error of telling me to use this wikipedia page ?. Ground #2 implied that you did not understand my mathematics page.

:As I wrote at the Election Methods List, you made a mistake at your website indicating that you lack a knowledge of the principles of 2 candidate preferential methods. It was about "representation" in 2 candidate elections. I assume that you test is oppressive and harsh since setting an impossible hard standard for me: a requirement that you understand me when I write for the public with the plainest clarity I can achieve. I only have your word for it that you failed to understand my page. I reject the idea that you could not understand all of the page. Perhaps your 1st ground was oppressive since it told me to look at a policy document but it unreasonably failed to identify a problem or error in my text (or my behaviour) that would be guided to a better state by the policy document. I.e. you warned of how I could improve under policy without identifying what should get better. The CVD comment about non-neutrality with the CVD appeared to be untrue. 

:I accuse you of making an improperly discriminatory decision because you have worse reasoning and harsher actions for authors of monotonicity pages and me (so far). You maybe do not want your Green party to keep losing. Your decision was more adverse to the public interest than this: you made a lot of major changes. I have a diff program and it is convenient for me to undo only some of changes. Most of my complaint is about your lack of reasoning rather than the decision to erase the document and restore a worse one. Nowhere do you give an opinion on the difference between the documents. You decision was wrong to replace one document with another and have no consideration for the 2nd new document. The reasoning is required by me and there was consideration of you preferred version. I don't know why you prefer it. It is certainly less useful. The http://www.condorcet.org/ text does not reject the Alternative Vote (you wrongly opted for that), since mysteriously Mr B.C. confuses a preference with a candidate. That is unexplained. I have asked Mr B.C. to tell the Election Methods List and not enough time has passed. It seemed to be deliberate since the word "alternative" was used. So there is some improper purpose to the text you prefer (in addition to the possible improper purpose of not letting a monotonicity page harm Greens across USA over an unknown period of time). Greens should not be advanced by unthinkable definitions of others. That is a bit neutral on Greens and able to cause harm to members of the Election Methods List. Already Mr Eric Gorr has been confused by a definition from the condorcet.org website. My new version that I will upload is here, only in the box at the top: http://www.ijs.co.nz/irv-wrong-winners.htm The topic is mathematics and they are detailed. If you aer not, then you should quite withdraw. There is also a private dispute where I intend to comment adversely on your personal website but only fairly and accurately. 

:Craig Carey, New Zealand (no advice that I be anonymous) 'research at ijs.co.nz'. 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

::Craig,

::Responding to just a few of your points: I was perfectly reasonable in refusing to provide additional reasoning by e-mail; there is nothing that says I should spend my time responding to personal e-mails about wikipedia, especially not after you accused me of being "perverted" and "corrupt" and suggested I was taking bribes from [[user:RobLa]].  Also, judge my contributions on their merit, not on my supposed political views about voting systems.  In any case, your assumptions about my views are inaccurate, sometimes wildly so.

::On to your actual contribution.  Here are my specific problems:

::1) In your definition, you introduce the concept of a "weighted vote", without any explanation whatsoever of what that is. Also, your text is gramatically incorrect, ambiguous, and frankly incoherent.

::2) The section titled "Centuries of fair voting ideals lost as use of IRV and STV spread" is chock full of hyperbole, and inappropriately placed.  If you want to discuss the results of IRV, it would be better placed on the [[Instant-runoff voting]] page.  But don't be surprised if your section is heavily edited there, too.  In addition, you introduce the concept of "vote-negating" with barely any explanation. 

::3) The section titled "A human right to have a vote" is pure hyperbole, and belongs nowhere in an encyclopedia.  If this were an actual tact that some people had taken, appealing for changes in voting systems to the UN under the "equal suffrage" clause, then we could as an encyclopedia, report that.  We can not engage in pure rhetoric, though.

::4) The section titled "Parameterized 3 candidate method has IRV/AV be 33% outside of the fair region" has more unexplained jargon, as does the section "Dual of shadowing stays-losing polytope is a normal vector constraining polytope".

::5) The section titled "Monotonicity is not best for theoreticians" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, because we are here to report on how people study the monotonicity criterion, not argue that they should study it another way.

::These are not all the problems I have with your text, but they are a start.

::[[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 13:51 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

== Requested move 27 October 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' There is currently more support in favor of moving to the proposed title. Whether to discuss alternatives is a separate discussion, but one that is worthwhile. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Yovt|𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝]] ([[User talk:Yovt|𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝]]) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
----

[[:Negative responsiveness paradox]] → {{no redirect|Negative responsiveness}} – Opening this up for discussion to refine a previous bold move from [[monotonicity criterion]] a few weeks back, see also [[#I'm not so sure the page move was a good one|previous section]] discussion other possible options, which include [[Additional support paradox]], [[Less-is-more paradox]], reverting back to the old title, or possibly inverted versions of the suggested titles (e.g. monotonicity failure/anomaly or positive response/iveness). There is an argument from [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] to favour the negative as it seems more intuitive, and no consensus on whether there is a clear common name in literature. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 04:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)<small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums|WikiProject Elections and Referendums]] has been notified of this discussion. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 00:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
:'''Monotonicity criterion'''
:I'd say go back to the original name of [[monotonicity criterion]]. That was the stable name, and reading through the talk page on here half of the reasoning for the change was because the mover wanted consistency with the names of the pages [[no show paradox]] and [[multiple districts paradox]], which upon further investigation into their own edit histories were also moved by the same person from their original names of [[participation criterion]] and [[consistency criterion]] respectively, which makes it a move that is based on their own previous undiscussed moves. Considering that this user is currently facing an [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bold,_or_disruptive?|WP:AN/I]] created by [[User:SarekOfVulcan]] in large part due to their practice of moving pages with minimal discussion, and that, by their own admission there, that they did not know that there was a different policy for moving than for regular edits, I would say that all three articles should be moved back to their original names. [[User:180 Degree Open Angedre|180 Degree Open Angedre]] ([[User talk:180 Degree Open Angedre|talk]]) 11:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
: I support returning to the [[monotonicity criterion]] with "negative responsiveness paradox" as a redirect, as well. [[User:Wotwotwoot|Wotwotwoot]] ([[User talk:Wotwotwoot|talk]]) 14:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Move''' to either [[negative responsiveness]] or [[additional support paradox]]. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 01:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Monotonicity (social choice)'''
:I think ''monotonicity'' is the most common term used for this. I would prefer a more general & constructive article about monotonicity in social choice, hence the ''(social choice)'' disambiguation, rather than framing it specifically as a paradox or pathology or even '''criterion'''.
:It could certainly be worth a mention of the other terms that rules without monotonicity are sometimes said to exhibit "negative responsiveness" or even that it is called a "paradox" sometimes, but I would not title the article this. redirects from negative responsiveness as suggested by @[[User:Wotwotwoot|Wotwotwoot]] look fine by me as well. [[User:Affinepplan|Affinepplan]] ([[User talk:Affinepplan|talk]]) 03:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Requested move 16 April 2025 ==

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes
|current1=Negative responsiveness|new1=Mono-raise criterion|current2=Multiple districts paradox|new2=Join-consistency criterion|current3=Best-is-worst paradox|new3=Reversal symmetry|}}

* [[:Negative responsiveness]] → {{no redirect|Mono-raise criterion}}
* [[:Multiple districts paradox]] → {{no redirect|Join-consistency criterion}}
* [[:Best-is-worst paradox]] → {{no redirect|Reversal symmetry}}
– Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an ''in''consistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)".

As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes ([[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]]) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page.

I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)</small>  <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)</small>

:I decided to split the paragraph into two parts, with one part in each section. [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 01:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::By the way, no worries about the edits—[[WP:BOLD]] exists for a reason! :){{pb}}If anything, I should be the one apologizing—I meant to go back and restore some of the content afterwards, but I've been way busier than I expected to be. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 03:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' move. In terms of naming:
:# As I laid out above, I think the paradox names are much more intuitive—e.g. "population monotonicity" is a very bland, mathematical word, and most people don't know what "monotonicity" means. On the other hand, "No-show paradox" is memorable and easy to understand.
:# From what I can tell, the names in terms of paradoxes were previous consistent across all the articles, with the exception of Condorcet's majority-rule principle (which I'm in the process of rewriting to merge with [[Condorcet method]]s).
:# The name "Mono-raise" is unambiguous but violates [[WP:NEOLOGISM]] from what I can tell: only one paper (in a recreational math journal) has used it. On the other hand, positive/negative responsiveness are both common terms and have a much longer history. Monotonicity is somewhere between the two but (as I mentioned) it's both ambiguous and a word most people don't know.
: [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::Hi Closed Limelike Curves. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I do have to push back on a few things:
::Regarding #2: I checked the page histories of the articles in the category "Electoral system criteria", and nine of them have at some point been named in terms of paradoxes or pathologies. Of these, five were originally named in terms of criteria but were renamed by you last year, two ("Spoiler effect" and "Strategic nomination) are associated with IIA and Independence of Clones (which have their own pages), one ("Center squeeze") was created by you and is derivative of "Spoiler effect", and one ("Seat bias") does not appear to have a corresponding criterion (unless you consider it to be "Proportional representation", which has its own page). Every other article in the category was named after the criterion rather than the associated paradox (or neither, like "Smith set" and "Comparison of voting rules").
::Regarding #1: That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But as Alpha3031 said back in October, these piecemeal moves make the article names in the category inconsistent, which we don't want. If you think that we should rephrase ''every'' article name as a paradox or pathology where possible, then I believe that's something that should be discussed first rather than done unilaterally. This category doesn't currently have a "Naming conventions" page, but if it did, then the associated talk page would be the place for discussion.
::Regarding #3. I wouldn't quite call "mono-raise" a neologism, any more than other technical terms that have been around for decades. It was coined by Douglas Woodall and appeared in his papers in "Voting matters" as early as 1994, and has appeared in other papers since then. As for positive/negative responsiveness being more common and having a longer history, yes, I'll give you that. That terminology goes as far back as 1952. But if we go with that, then I would name the article "Positive responsiveness" for the sake of consistency.
::So the way I see it, there are two options:
::Option 1: We move "Negative responsiveness" to "Positive responsiveness" and rewrite the first paragraph accordingly, we move "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion" or something similar, and we move "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". This is the simpler option.
::Option 2: This is the more complicated option. We open a discussion on changing the category's naming conventions. This should be an open discussion with other people giving their input, rather than just the two of us going back and forth.
::Thank you for considering my points. I hope that we can come to an agreement soon. [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::If we go with option 1, then the first paragraph of "Negative responsiveness" could be rewritten as follows:
:::The '''positive responsiveness''' or '''monotonicity criterion''' is a [[voting system criterion]] used to evaluate both single and multiple winner [[ranked voting system]]s.<ref name="Woodall-Monotonicity222">D R Woodall, [http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE6/P4.HTM "Monotonicity and Single-Seat Election Rules"], ''[[Voting matters]]'', Issue 6, 1996</ref> A ranked voting system satisfies positive responsiveness if it is neither possible to prevent the election of a candidate by ranking them higher on some of the ballots, nor possible to elect an otherwise unelected candidate by ranking them lower on some of the ballots (while nothing else is altered on any ballot). That is to say, in single winner elections no winner is harmed by up-ranking and no loser is helped by down-ranking. Voting systems that violate positive responsiveness can be said to exhibit the '''negative response''',<ref>{{Cite journal |last=May |first=Kenneth O. |date=1952 |title=A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1907651 |journal=Econometrica |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=680–684 |doi=10.2307/1907651 |issn=0012-9682 |jstor=1907651}}</ref><ref name=":4222">{{Cite book |last=Pukelsheim |first=Friedrich |url=http://archive.org/details/proportionalrepr0000puke |title=Proportional representation: apportionment methods and their applications |date=2014 |publisher=Cham; New York : Springer |others=Internet Archive |isbn=978-3-319-03855-1}}</ref> '''perversity''',<ref name="jstor.org">{{Cite journal |last1=Doron |first1=Gideon |last2=Kronick |first2=Richard |date=1977 |title=Single Transferrable Vote: An Example of a Perverse Social Choice Function |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2110496 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=303–311 |doi=10.2307/2110496 |issn=0092-5853 |jstor=2110496}}</ref> or '''additional support paradox'''.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web <!--Is this a conference?--> |last=Felsenthal |first=Dan S. |date=April 2010 |title=Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected |url=https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27685/ |language=en |location=GBR |pages=1–52}}</ref> [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 11:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I believe that the existing objections to the proposed moves were sufficiently addressed in my comment above. If there are no further objections, I'm going to request that this discussion be closed so that I can make the recommended changes (compromising with regard to "Positive responsiveness"). [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 21:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqb|1=Regarding #3. I wouldn't quite call "mono-raise" a neologism, any more than other technical terms that have been around for decades. It was coined by Douglas Woodall and appeared in his papers in "Voting matters" as early as 1994, and has appeared in other papers since then.}}<br>I'm not aware of it anywhere outside ''Voting matters''. Do you have any citations?{{pb}}{{tqb|1=Option 2: This is the more complicated option. We open a discussion on changing the category's naming conventions. }}From what I can tell there wasn't a convention either way—lots of these articles (e.g. [[Condorcet paradox]], [[apportionment paradox]], and [[spoiler effect]]) have always had the negative variant as their title. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 16:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tqb|I'm not aware of it anywhere outside Voting matters. Do you have any citations?}}
::::It has appeared in other papers. You can see them here on Google Scholar: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=mono-raise+criterion&btnG=] But it's fine. Like I said, I'm willing to compromise on this point.
::::{{tqb|From what I can tell there wasn't a convention either way—lots of these articles (e.g. [[Condorcet paradox]], [[apportionment paradox]], and [[spoiler effect]]) have always had the negative variant as their title.}}
::::I'm talking specifically about the articles in [[:Category:Electoral system criteria]]. Two of your three examples aren't listed in this category. As for the one that is ([[Spoiler effect]]), the criterion that it violates ([[Independence of clones criterion|Independence of clones]]) has its own page in the category. The pathology doesn't take precedence over the criterion. It never did for any of the articles in the category until you made the changes last year. [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 03:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums|WikiProject Elections and Referendums]] has been notified of this discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
:I'm now leaning towards a move back to [[Monotonicity criterion]], where it was from 2003 to 2024, if nobody can work out a [[WP:COMMONAME]] by citing sources. Lime, you mentioned "positive response" and "positive association" are more common in literature you're aware of. Please cite them. Man of Steel, similarly, if you have any evidence for COMMONNAME, please put them here. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 11:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think there's a consensus against [[monotonicity criterion]] because it's ambiguous: monotonicity can also mean or include [[population monotonicity]], [[vote-ratio monotonicity]], [[monotonicity (mechanism design)|strong/Maskin monotonicity]], [[participation criterion|participation monotonicity]], or anything to do with [[monotonic function]]s in general. If the name is switched, it should be to "positive responsiveness".{{pb}}On the topic of how common these are: a [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22non-negative+responsiveness%22&btnG=&oq=%22non a Scholar search for "non-negative responsiveness"] gives 10 pages of relevant search results (before even including minor variants like "positive responsiveness", "nonnegative responsiveness", or "negative responsiveness"). These include very high-quality sources, with the term being coined by Arrow himself. OTOH, "mono-raise" gives 1 page of directly-relevant results, mostly by the same two authors/collaborators (DR Woodall and FW Simmons of the EM mailing list) and of mixed quality. I do think this term has become dominant among people in the Free Software/Wikipedia space, who were influenced by a few prolific early-internet posters on the EM mailing list and this article itself (which is partly why there was some resistance to adopting the terms from the most-reliable sources).{{pb}}I think the real question we have to address here is if we should consistently use the "logical criterion" framing, where rules are disqualified if they ever show unusual behavior, or the pathology/failure framework, which emphasizes individual violations. I think the latter is a lot more useful, general, and intuitive because it avoids a false dichotomy, and because focusing on individual concrete examples makes the idea much clearer. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 20:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::I would support a move to "Positive responsiveness" because it is unambiguous (unlike "Monotonicity criterion") and consistent with the category's naming conventions (unlike "Negative responsiveness"). Indeed, the "real question" that Lime poses in their above comment is where we currently disagree. I support the pre-existing convention (in which the criterion takes precedence over the pathology), while Lime would prefer to reverse it (hence the moves that they made to some of the pages last year). [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 03:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Which is (out of the positive and negative framings) more common? [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 06:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Going one-by-one:<br>1. Negative vs. non-negative responsiveness are symmetric and interchangeable, so I don't see reasons beyond consistency for either framing. Most articles referencing one of these terms use the other too, since they're straightforward antonyms. (Technically, "positive responsiveness" is ambiguous, because it's not clear if it means the function is ''strictly'' increasing or just non-decreasing.)<br>2. "Join-consistency criterion" seems to have no hits at all in Scholar, while "Join-consistency" by itself seems to be ambiguous (with most of the hits being from [[relational database]]s or measure theory/probability).<br>3. In searches, "participation criterion" seems to be ambiguous, and typically doesn't refer to social choice at all. This makes it difficult to prove if one phrasing or the other is more common, but in my experience the no-show paradox framing is dominant, with very few references to this as a "criterion" rather than a paradox or pathology.{{pb}}Overall I suspect the negative framing (in terms of pathologies) is more common in the literature, but it's difficult to prove because of how often the positive phrasings are less specific. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tqbm|Technically, "positive responsiveness" is ambiguous, because it's not clear if it means the function is strictly increasing or just non-decreasing.}}Our titles kinda {{em|should}} encompass the broadest possible scope that would not be separate articles, so unless you think you can write a separate article on both the strictly increasing and the non-decreasing, the title should be able to accommodate both so that both can be discussed {{em|somewhere}}. And even if you {{em|could}} write both articles, there should be an article that summarises both, if there is a term that refers to both.
:::::If this is the kind of ambiguity the two of you were referring to earlier as well, then the article {{em|should}} be moved back to [[monotonicity criterion]], with sections made of excerpts and summaries of the other articles you mentioned with a {{tl|main}} pointing towards said other articles. When appropriate, the more specific articles can be spun out. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 20:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Regarding #1: I would support a move to "Non-negative responsiveness".
:::::Regarding #2: I see your point. Then I propose "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)" or "Join-consistency (electoral systems)" as the new name. Here's how the Google Scholar search results compare: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22consistency+criterion%22+%28electoral+systems%29&btnG=|"consistency criterion" (electoral systems)] vs. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22join-consistency%22+%28electoral+systems%29&btnG=|"join-consistency" (electoral systems)] vs. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22multiple+districts+paradox%22&btnG=|"multiple districts paradox"].
:::::Regarding #3: The third article being discussed here is "Reversal symmetry"/"Best-is-worst paradox", not "Participation criterion"/"No-show paradox". I admit that "Reversal symmetry" is ambiguous, and so propose "Reversal symmetry (electoral systems)" as the new name instead. Here's how the search results compare: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22reversal+symmetry%22+%28electoral+systems%29&btnG=|"reversal symmetry" (electoral systems)] vs. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22best-is-worst+paradox%22&btnG="best-is-worst paradox"]. [[User:Man of Steel 85|Man of Steel 85]] ([[User talk:Man of Steel 85|talk]]) 05:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}