[EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 02/15/2012 06:08 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> But conditionality-by-mutuality violates later-no-help, and as such,
> raises the spectre of a DH3 <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DH3>-like
> scenario.

I think you can have burial in methods that pass LNHelp too, unless the 
method also passes LNHarm. LNHelp-complying methods could still reward a 
move from, say, A>B>C to A>C>B (where the point would be to keep B from 
winning more than to get A to win).

See, for instance, Kevin Venzke's post: 
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027098.html 
, or James Green-Armytage's: 
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027091.html