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

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sun Feb 19 14:03:29 PST 2012



De : Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>
À : Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> 
Cc : election-methods <election-methods at electorama.com> 
Envoyé le : Dimanche 19 février 2012 15h28
Objet : Re: [EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC

On 02/19/2012 09:37 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> 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...

If there are just two blocs, then the DH3 scenario never gets off the ground. Say you have a nobody, Z, and two viable candidates (A and B). Then say the honest ballots are something like:

53: A > B > Z
46: B > A > Z
1: Z > A = B

Then the B-supporters can't get the ball rolling, at least not in Condorcet, by burying A. Even if they do so, A will win by first preferences alone.

Technically speaking, it takes three viables to make a cycle, and you need cycle-making/turning strategy to make DH3 work in Condorcet. In Borda, you could do a sort of DH3 with only two blocs, but that's because Borda doesn't satisfy Majority.

Yes, I don't understand why it would be viewed this way. I.e. why would one assume that "two major blocs" means one bloc is a majority. I think a
"pawn" could have 10% or even more of the votes. It's as though one wants to be sure to be able to say that absolutely nobody likes the pawn.

I think that if DH3 could ever actually happen it would be better news than bad, just because it would mean we are able to have three blocs like that!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120219/53ec25e5/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list