[EM] truncation dilemma

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

>
> ... On a separate note, perhaps the "covering" concept is too
> hard to
> explain. How much better is that than simply a single bubble
> sort pass up
> from the bottom of the seed order? That would also guarantee
> Smith set.
>
> JQ
> 

"Covering" is at least as easy to explain as "beatpath" and bubble sort:   A
covers B iff A beats not only B but also every alternative that B beats.

In the case of three candidates, the method I suggested picks the random ballot
winner if there is no CW.  

The Bubble sort version cannot be summarized so simply in the three candidate
version.  In that case, you still have to refer to the social order determined
by the random ballot with possible refinements.

With more than three candidates, the Bubble sort method may pick a covered
candidate.

On another note:  in the case of a runoff, you can still avoid two trips to the
polls by having the voters fill out two ballots ... a strategic ballot to be
used in determining the two finalists, and one sincere ballot for choosing
between the two finalists.  Nobody could benefit from truncating the second
ballot.  It would also be interesting to be able to compare the two ballots to
see how much strategic voting was actually taking place.