[EM] Re: Later-no-harm, Mono-add-top, etc.

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sat Jan 3 14:46:02 PST 2004


 --- Chris Benham <chrisbenham at bigpond.com> a écrit : 
> I surmise that Margins meets Mono-add-top, because it is not burdened with meeting Plurality,
> and also according to Woodall Mono-add-top and Condorcet are not incompatible.

According to Woodall, Tideman(margins) has the same properties as DminAGS, which
fails Mono-add-top.  (I suppose you could dispute that, but you should have
a better reasoning than its failure of Plurality.)

While Woodall charts methods which meet Mono-add-top and Condorcet, those
methods don't meet Smith.  At the end of "Properties of single-winner preferential
rules II," he lists sets of properties whose compatibility is unknown.
"Smith-Condorcet (gross), mono-add-top" is on that list.  If a method
were known which satisfied Smith(net) (i.e., Smith as we usually think
of it) and Mono-add-top, it would necessarily also meet Smith(gross).

So if someone were to find a method that meets Smith and Mono-add-top, 
it would be worth telling Woodall about.

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr

Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list