[EM] Condorcet-Approval hybrid method

[Dave Ketchum]

OUCH!

I must have been asleep.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:31:01 +0100 (CET) Kevin Venzke wrote:

> Dave,
> 
>  --- Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> a écrit : 
> 
>>Why bother?
>>
>>How often do you get a cycle in a real election?
>>
> 
> I don't know why you always say that cycles would be rare. I think they would 
> be fairly common, for example:
> 
> 49 A
> 24 B
> 27 C>B
> 
> This scenario doesn't require a conflicted electorate. It just takes some
> truncation.
> 
> 
>>     While we must provide for cycles because they would CERTAINLY happen 
>>if we did not make provision, I claim there are limits to how fancy we 
>>need to get for something so rare.
>>
> 
>>Mixing in Approval complicates strategy considerations even though, as 
>>noted above, it rarely affects results.
>>
> 
> Actually, the strategy should be easier. I know that you understand Approval
> strategy, even if it offends you to have to use it. However, I don't think
> you even understand the rules of cycle resolution based on defeat strength, so 
> how can you claim which has more complicated strategy?


It is not a "which".  You have to plan among:
      Winning without a cycle.
      Get a cycle AND make Approval come out right with the result.

This thread is after Approval, so has not been into any other method of 
cycle resolution - which is a debate topic, itself.

> 
> Kevin Venzke

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.