[EM] Mike: CWP (was: SFC)

[James Green-Armytage]

James replying to Mike...

>And the possibility that wv, like CWP, can still be affected by 
>OOR doesn't mean anything as a way to try to say that SFC's guarantee
>isn't 
>important.

	I don't think that SFC is unimportant. However, I do think that a method
like CWP can fail SFC and still have excellent truncation resistance in
practice.
>
James:
>	I also argue that CWP won't be vulnerable to strategically motivated
>truncation. If supporters of a candidate A are truncating against B (the
>sincere CW) in order to cause an A>C>B>A cycle that resolves in favor of
>A, I reason that A and B are likely to be very different candidates, in
>that the average rating differentials on both sides of the A-B preference
>will be high. (If they were similar candidates, then the reward/risk ratio
>of the strategy would be fairly low, and hence it would probably not
>occur.) If the rating differential on both sides of the A-C preference is
>high, then the B>A defeat will be strong, and an attempt to overrule it
>via a burying strategy will be unlikely to succeed.
Mike:
>That somewhat mitigates the problem, but doesn't change the fact that
>often 
>voters in CWP will need to guess the best ratings strategly in order to
>gain 
>the protection that is automatic with SFC complying methods.

	No, what I'm saying is that sincere ratings by themselves usually serve
as an effective counterstrategy, for the reasons stated briefly above, and
at greater length in my paper.
>
James:
>I do say that order-reversal may be more likely than
>you expect
Mike:
>Remember the story of the Three Sillies and the hammer on the wall?

	Nope.
>
James:
>, and that CWP can provide similarly high resistance to both
>truncation and order-reversal.
Mike:
>You mean similarly _low_ , when compared with SFC-complying methods' 
>resistance to truncation.

	No, I certainly don't mean that. I mean that CWP provides a very high
resistance to both truncation and order reversal. Compared to WV? Well, I
believe that CWP offers substantially better resistance to order reversal
than WV, and that it's resistance to truncation is equally good as its
resistance to order reversal. 
	Does WV have better truncation resistance than pathless CWP? I'm not
sure, but perhaps it does. However, I will still say that CWP's truncation
resistance is as good as any method needs to be, and that CWP's greater
resistance to order-reversal makes it more strategy resistant than WV
overall.
>
>Against truncation CWP's protection is haphazard compared to the
>assurance 
>of SFC & GSFC. 

	Not haphazard. Just different. You're right when you say that CWP doesn't
make the same guarantee that GSFC-passing methods do. However, it provides
strong protection against truncation and order-reversal, as I have argued
at length.

Sincerely,
James