Subcycles and the Rich Party Problem

[Mike Ossipoff]

Yes, that statement of the subcycle rule seems to say the same
as mine, except that my latest statement of it said that
the cycles must be solved before determining a winner. That
means that even in plain Condorcet, which otherwise ignores
cycles, including the Smith set, the subcycle rule would still
accomplish its purpose of achieving compliance with LO2E-2.

Even if the subcycle rule could make Copeland or Regular-Champion
comply with ITC, that still wouldn't help its violation of the
other important criteria posted here, so it wouldn't solve
Regular-Champion's or Copeland's problems. I mention that, though
I'm sure that it's already known.

Also, it wouldn't bring it into compliance with some unposted criteria
that are close relatives of ITC. ITC does a good job of separating
methods that have the Rich Parties problem from those that don't.
Adding the subcycle rule to Copeland would be a patch that
would necessitate a generalization of ITC in order to still 
be able to demark methods that have the Rich Parties problem
from methods that don't have it. It would be a question of moving
the benchmark, which ok if the new benchmark is reasonable &
important in its own right. And this would be necessary due
to the use of a patch that's used to pass ITC.


Mike






--