[EM] Copeland's criteria
stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sun Sep 11 15:44:31 PDT 2005
I thought about this a bit. Consider this election:
C has 3 wins, and is the only Copeland winner.
Woodall's plurality criterion is violated, since there's no way to raise C
in rankings including C so that C has even the first preference count that
A starts with.
A has 3 wins, and is the only Copeland winner.
Eppley's minimal defense criterion is violated, because there is no way
for the C>G>B voters (with the B voters) to at least elect B, without
insincerely ranking B above G (for a tie with A) or both C and G (to win).
So when I told Rob I couldn't advocate Copeland unless the tie-breaker
satisfied minimal defense, I was talking about something impossible.
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
More information about the Election-Methods