[EM] FBC, center squeeze, and CD

[C.Benham]

On 11/9/2016 8:35 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> (You wrote) :
>
> And it isn't clear to me that "wv-like strategy" is even something we 
> should take if it was free.
>
> (endquote)
>
> In Benham, Woodall, ICT, & probably many or most pairwise-count 
> methods, the CWs has no protection from burial, or even from innocent, 
> non-strategic truncation.
>
> With wv-like strategy, truncation from one side can't take victory 
> from the CWs & give it to the truncators' candidate.
>
> ...and plumping by the CWs's voters makes it impossible for burial to 
> succeed. In fact, the mere threat of that plumping can deter burial.
>

So to "protect"  some candidate  that some voters imagine is the sincere 
CW (when perhaps there is no sincere CW or some other candidate
is the sincere CW) you want to have a "defensive truncation" strategy 
available/inside/ a method with a very strong random-fill incentive?

And you should add (and stress) that it needs plumping by /all /of the 
"CWs voters to make it impossible for burial to succeed", and not ,say,
merely 93% of them (with the other 7% sincerely fully ranking):

43: A
03: A>B
44: B>C  (sincere may be B or B>A)
10: C

100 ballots.  C>A 54-46,   A>B 46-44,  B>C 47-10.   Top Ratings A46 > 
B44 > C10.   Approvals: C54 > A46 > B44.

Here MDDTR  (like MDDTA and WV and Margins and MMPO and Jameson's latest 
"holy grail")  all elect the possibly burying voters' favourite, B.

Viewing the ballots from the top, A is the strongest candidate (and 
possibly the sincere CW) and viewing the ballots from the bottom C is the
strongest candidate.  And electing B is simply a very bad (and flagrant) 
failure of  Later-no-Help. And B is both pairwise beaten and positionally
dominated by A.

So I can't accept any method that in this scenario elects B.

Chris Benham






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161109/884421e4/attachment.htm>