[EM] RE: (crossposted) Revisiting Copeland

[Kevin Venzke]

Rob,

--- Rob Lanphier <robla at robla.net> a écrit :
> In thinking about proposals for public elections, it occurs to me that
> we may have dismissed Copeland's method too soon.
> 
> So, why not Copeland, with a simple tiebreaker (e.g. plurality, or at
> most Minmax(wv))?  That'd be very similar to how the NFL (U.S. football)
> picks the divisional champions, which is first by win-loss-tie, then by
> intradivisional win-loss-tie, then by total points scored.

I couldn't support Copeland unless you use a tiebreaker that satisfies
minimal defense. Otherwise:

49 A
24 B
27 C>B

A could be elected, for instance with a plurality tiebreaker.

You suggested in a later message that plurality should be applied by 
eliminating Copeland non-winners first, and then counting first preferences.
But I don't believe that is monotonic.

I don't have to tell you that a plurality tiebreaker would bring massive
favorite betrayal incentive.

Kevin Venzke



	

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