[EM] Participation Criteria and Bucklin - perhaps they *can* work together after all?

[Jameson Quinn]

Unfortunately, Bucklin systems fail that one too.

However, it passes "Adding one more ballot that votes X as highest
preference, and a ballot (either the same one or a second one) that votes Y
as lowest preference, should never change the winner from X to Y". You can
change "highest" to "above the winning median" and "lowest" to "below the
second-place median" and this passage still holds, although then the
criterion is meaningless for a non-median system.

Basically, Bucklin systems can fail participation if the added ballot(s)
rate both X and Y above, or both below, the winning median; it cannot fail
if the added ballot(s) span the median with X and Y. Thus if voters know
beforehand the winning median and the two frontrunners, they can make sure
that their ballot will not violate participation. And in a partisan
environment with two clear frontrunners, most people's ballots will
honestly meet that criterion without even a need for strategy.

Jameson

2013/6/17 Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>

> OK, let’s assume that as defined, Bucklin fails Participation. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Let me specify a new criteria, which already either has its own name that
> I do not know, or which I can call Prime Participation:****
>
> ** **
>
> “*Adding one or more ballots that vote X as a highest preference should
> never change the winner from X to Y*”****
>
> ** **
>
> In other words, expressing a first place/greatest magnitude preference for
> X, if X was already winning, cannot make X not win.****
>
> ** **
>
> This may be another one so basic that few or maybe no real voting systems
> fail it?****
>
> ** **
>
> -Benn Grant****
>
> eFix Computer Consulting****
>
> benn at 4efix.com****
>
> 603.283.6601****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130617/8239758a/attachment-0004.htm>