[EM] Copeland's criteria

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi,

I thought about this a bit. Consider this election:

49 A
24 B>E
27 C>D>B>E

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.

Consider this:

49 A>F
24 B
27 C>G>B

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.

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger 
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com