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

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sun Feb 19 12:37:05 PST 2012

Does anyone understand why the DH3 concept exists? Why envision three major blocs, instead of two major blocs plus the small bloc belonging
to the pawn candidate? That doesn't require four candidates and more closely resembles how burial problems are usually considered...


 De : Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>
À : Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> 
Cc : MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>; election-methods at electorama.com 
Envoyé le : Dimanche 19 février 2012 7h48
Objet : Re: [EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120219/3a99157f/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list