[EM] RMDD foils truncation in James' example.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

In James' co-operation/defection example that he recently posted to show 
that problem in 1-balloting unenhanced wv, the B voters could steal the 
election from CW A by truncation or by order-reversal.

But with RMDD, only order-reversal could do it. If the B voters merely 
truncate, the sincere voting of the A voters gives C a majority defeat, 
disqualiflying C, and making an AB tie. Since the CW pairwise beats B, the 
CW wins the wv tiebreaker.

By the way, someone miglht object that RMDD doesn't foil order-reversal in 
that example, since I offered RMDD as an order-reversal solution. But all I 
said was that RMDD meets SSSC. If the B voters steal the election and elect 
B by defection, that election of B isn't a majority rule violation. I 
already pointed that out, to tell why that result isn't as bad as James 
implies that it is. That's why RMDD lets it happen. RMDD is for protecting 
voted majority wishes and meeting SSSC.

Mike Ossipoff


Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win 
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp