[EM] CD, briefer, better-workng, and with Juho's clarifications

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 12 07:33:22 PST 2014

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> We seem to have similar understanding on how the CD should be defined. My
> problem was just that I couldn't see these features (multiple strategic
> groupins, that prefer C candidates above others, causing some cadidate
> outside C to win) fully reflected in the CD definition that you sent out
> earlier today.

The earlier version had the problem of not applying to Approval, but I
think that my current, latest, CD version acts as intended.

The fact that it doesn't apply to Plurality isn't a problem: CD is intended
to measure for A voters being able to help B without being taken advantage
of. But Pluality won't even let them help B without voting B over A,
thereby victimizing _themselves_.

So, any suggestion that Plurality is ok because it doesn't fail (or pass)
CD, would sound like saying that a homeless person is better off, because
they don't have to bother to buy a door-lock.

Michael Ossipoff

> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140112/0945312f/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list