[EM] Re: Compromising

[James Green-Armytage]

I had written:
>	I've long been under the impression that there is no incentive to use
>the compromising strategy in Condorcet's method unless there is no
>Condorcet winner.

you asked:
>Do you mean sincere "Condorcet winner"? 

	No, not really. I mean it sort of like as if sincere votes are cast, the
outcome is reported, and then is there a CW or isn't there?; and is there
a group of voters who could get a mutually preferable result using the
compromising strategy, or not?
	Because, there could be a sincere Condorcet winner, but some other folks
might use a burying strategy or something, creating a fake cycle, in which
case compromising incentive is likely to appear. So that's not what I'm
talking about. I meant kind of like "no Condorcet winner in an
intermediate outcome", or something like that. Does that make sense?

>And by "Condorcet's method" do you specifically mean
>WV?

	Nope. WV or margins; minimax, beatpath, ranked pairs, river... I assume
that the same proof would apply to all of them... but if there is a proof
that just applies to some of them, that's okay I guess.
>
my best,
James
>
>