Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Thu May 26 21:52:21 PDT 2005


> 	I'm not sure that your example contradicts my general statement, because
> I don't know who the sincere IRV winner was. Maybe A was the sincere IRV
> winner, but all of the B voters truncated. Perhaps I could make my
> statement more tautological as follows: 
> 	__If the sincere IRV winner I differs from the sincere Condorcet winner
> C, and all C>I voters vote strict and sincere rankings, then the I>C
> voters will have an opportunity to give I the victory by using a
> bury-reverse strategy against C.__ (Is this always true? I'm not sure, but
> I think so.)

So, like this perhaps:

40 A>B>C (sincere)
25 B>A>C
35 C>B>A

IRV/FPP/DSC order is A>C>B; CDTT is {b}.

40 A>C>B (insincere)
25 B>A>C
35 C>B>A

IRV/FPP/DSC order is A>C>B; CDTT is {a,b,c}.

Yes, CDTT methods have the same burial problem (and solution) as
WV methods. That's one reason I suggest CDTT,RandomBallot.

> and here's UMID from 7/26/04:
> ... 
> >If there is a set such that no candidate within the set is
> >majority-beaten by any candidate outside the set, then it's an
> >inconclusively-dominated set. If it doesn't contain other
> >inconclusively-dominated sets, then it's a minimal
> >inconclusively-dominated set. So the union of minimal
> >inconclusively-dominated sets consists of all the candidates who belong
> >to a minimal inconclusively-dominated set.
> 	That's the same, right?

Yes, and earlier Markus defined the "Smith//Truncation set."

I find your choice of words amusing. By analogy, if no one drops a
bomb on me then I'm "inconclusively-exploded."

Kevin Venzke


Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list