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

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/2/19 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>

> 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<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<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<http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-February/027091.html>
>
> I thought that for a LNHelp method, going from A>B>C to A>B=C would be
sufficient, wouldn't it?

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120219/3f64301a/attachment-0004.htm>