[EM] One-sided coalitions don't count

[Michael Ossipoff]

...That's what CD, in its present, simplest possble, for says:

One-sided coalitons don't count.

That loses the SDSC advantage of the ideal majoritarian methods such as
Ranked-Pairs and Beatpath.

But, for mutual majorities, referred to by Woodall as solid coalitions,
that CD compliance, saying that 1-sided coalitions don't count, is a cement
that will hold solid coalitions together, protecting them from
intra-majority rivalries and distrust. Those problems are common among U.S.
progressives. I don't know if that's so elsewhere.

Yes it would be good to have SDSC. But not having it wouldn't be as bad as
it would be for even solid coalitons to self-destruct due to intra-majority
rivalry and distrust.

SDSC methods, ideal majoritarian methods (Ranked-Pairs and Beatpath) are
good for ideal majoritarian conditions. ....meaning no chicken dilemma
problem (and, of course no misinformed favorite-burial problem).

After a progressive party has been elected to office, and becomes our
government, there will no longer be a need for FBC, for reasons that I've
discussed. But the danger of chicken-dilemma will remain, and so
CD-complying methods would be the best.

One thing about Approval and Score is that they're ok under all conditions.
But, in Green scenario conditons, wthout FBC need, it's possibe to meet MMC
and CD. IRV does that, and IRV is the only non-Plurality method that is
offered in U.S. political party platforms. So we already have a good head
start for a MMC & CD method, a Green scenario method.


...Add the Condorcet Criterion, and you have thevery best, for the Green
scenario. That's accomplished by Benham and Woodall.

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140112/74fbf983/attachment-0002.htm>