[EM] Why I Think Sincere Cycles are Extremely Unlikely in Practice

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Forest,

I don't disagree with much of what you've said.

--- En date de : Ven 12.11.10, fsimmons at pcc.edu <fsimmons at pcc.edu> a écrit :
> If sincere cycles are extremely
> unlikely in practice, then the best Condorcet method is the
> one that most 
> effectively discourages artificial cycles.

But this is a huge statement. What if the Condorcet method that most
effectively discourages artificial cycles, also discourages nomination?
Or gives politically unacceptable results? Or has a clone problem?

What if it were the case that *no* Condorcet method, in practice, suffers
from artificial cycles?

> Here's why I think that in practice there is almost always
> a sincere CW.

I agree. I just see a variety of practical problems in exposing it.

One reason I prefer to fail LNHarm rather than Minimal Defense is that
when the ballots are sincere (other than truncation) and you violate MD,
you are definitely not electing a sincere CW.

And I don't think you can provide sufficient incentive to voters to 
eliminate truncation, especially without LNHarm.

Kevin